Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Mr. Bernie Grant, Member for Tottenham. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Numbers (London)

Dr. Vincent Cable: What is the predicted net change in police numbers in London for the financial year 2000–01 over 1999–2000. [116785]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): In March 1997, the Metropolitan police service had a strength of 27,166 officers. In March this year, estimated strength was 26,034 officers. From

1 April, 474 Metropolitan police officers are being seconded to county constabularies as a result of the boundary changes to the Metropolitan police district, bringing total numbers to 25,556. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, intends to maintain overall numbers at around that level for the current financial year. In addition, administrative changes made by the new Commissioner should mean an extra 300 officers on the streets by the end of the financial year.

Dr. Cable: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that even after that increase, at the end of the next financial year there will be more than 500 fewer officers than he inherited? Does he acknowledge that there is enormous anxiety, especially in suburban areas such as mine, which have suffered disproportionate cuts, about the loss of police officers and the resultant petty crime and vandalism? Does he also acknowledge that there is a serious crisis of morale in the police force in London, and that, according to the Police Federation, the pay and the conditions of employment lead many police officers to resort to working part-time as, for example, pizza delivery men and nurses?

Mr. Straw: I acknowledge the arithmetic at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, although the total number of police officers matters, the way in which they are used—the amount of time that they spend in police stations, on operational duties and on administrative duties—is almost as important. We propose to ensure that there is less bureaucracy in the Metropolitan police service, as well as outside it. The Commissioner is taking that plan forward. It will make sure that there are more front-line operational officers available, both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere.
On morale, I acknowledge the serious discrepancy between the remuneration of officers who joined the police service after 1994, when the Sheehy arrangements were established by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was then Home Secretary, and the remuneration of those who joined


afterwards. Proposals from the employers' side to increase the London allowance for Metropolitan police officers are before the police negotiating board. We hope that an agreement will be reached on 19 April.

Mr. Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend knows that the price of houses is high in London, and that approximately 40 per cent. of new Met recruits come from outside London. In view of the launch of the housing Green Paper and the arrival of a mayor, will the Home Secretary consult colleagues in the House and outside to consider creative ways in which to provide affordable housing for new police recruits?

Mr. Straw: Yes. The Metropolitan police service already provides a good supply of affordable housing for some new officers. However, I accept that there is a problem, especially with the remuneration of Metropolitan police officers compared with that offered by other employment opportunities. For that reason, the employers have made the offer in the police negotiating board, on the basis of funds that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made available to me and announced in the Budget three weeks ago. I hope that there will be early agreement in the negotiating board so that the differential—which, sadly, the previous Administration bequeathed to the police service—between officers who joined the service before 1994 and those who joined afterwards is greatly reduced.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the substantial fall in police numbers in London means that in the past eight months, 23 London police stations have either had to close or are no longer open round the clock? What confidence has he that he can rectify the problem of Metropolitan police recruitment and retention? Is he prepared to say how much of the £80 million recently announced for recruitment and retention will be spent on the Metropolitan police? If it is not a good slice, the thin blue line will become ever thinner.

Mr. Straw: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I think is his Opposition Front-Bench debut at Home Office questions—certainly in front of me.
At all times and given any budget, whether a particular police station remains open or other changes are made in the service available to the public is a matter for the chief officer of police. No Government have ever guaranteed that an individual police station can remain open. It is essential that the police service is given the resources that it needs to provide a proper service to the public. That is what I have done in the three years in which I have set the Metropolitan police service budgets; in the previous year the police service in the Metropolitan police area enjoyed an increase of almost 5 per cent. in its budget. Adequate funds are available for this year to maintain total numbers at the level established by the Commissioner. In other words, by the end they should be similar to those at the beginning of the financial year.
I accept that there is a recruitment problem, and I have already dealt with that. Although I understand the concern of Londoners, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench are the last people in the world who should make points about current spending on the Metropolitan police service. I remind him—he may conveniently have forgotten—that the strength of the

Metropolitan police was cut by no fewer than 1,700 officers between 1992 and 1998, entirely under budgets set by the previous Conservative Administration.

Police Numbers

Mr. David Chidgey: By what date he estimates the police forces of England and Wales will have returned police strength to March 1997 levels; and if he will make a statement. [116786]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We anticipate that the impact of our crime fighting fund, which was announced last October, and the additional allocation of resources in the Budget, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred, will enable police numbers to reach their March 1997 level at or before the end of a full five-year parliamentary term.

Mr. Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman find it difficult to persuade my constituents and others that the information that police numbers in England and Wales will not be restored to the level that existed in 1997 under the previous Administration is not at odds with the election pledge of more bobbies on the beat? In particular, does he find it difficult to explain to my constituents in Hampshire that although our chief constable recently put in a bid under the crime fighting fund for more police officers, a 10 per cent. slice was taken off the top? My constituents do not want officers simply to replace those that we used to have; they want more officers to fight crime on the streets in our towns and villages.

Mr. Clarke: We are focused on having more operational police, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. As he has referred to his constituents, I draw his attention to the situation in Hampshire, where, although police numbers have declined by 41 to 3,411 since March 1997, civilian support staff numbers have increased by 87 over the same period. The increase in civilian numbers is significant. It includes operational posts such as scene-of-crime and fingerprint officers, and is the result of the chief constable's judgment of how to get best value in reducing crime in his county.
The hon. Gentleman will know that crime in Hampshire decreased by 4.5 per cent. in the 12 months to October 1999. For that achievement, I pay tribute to the chief constable and his force, who have been working to fight crime, rather than trying to score cheap points in party political debate.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that even if police numbers are falling, it is essential to keep to the minimum number of police per shift, and not to breach it? That has obviously happened in Barnet over the past few months, with only 22 policemen on a shift instead of the minimum 32. Does the hon. Gentleman see any parallel between that diminishing number of police on the beat—he must address that problem, and I know that he wants to—and the turnaround in crime in the metropolis, which increased by 8.5 per cent. last year after six years of reduction?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I discussed that issue in detail during the debate on the police grant. I answered his points then, and my right hon. Friend the


Home Secretary, too, has addressed them directly. We are focused on getting more operational police in Barnet, and everywhere else in the metropolitan area, by the means that we have described, which my right hon. Friend discussed a moment ago.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only police numbers in separate forces, but the way in which those police officers are used, is important? Will he note the fact that the police in my area have managed to get 14 extra officers on the beat in Burnley and Padiham without receiving any extra resources?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct, which is why it was decided—rightly, in my opinion—to give chief constables operational responsibility to decide how to use their resources, rather than having the Home Secretary specify establishment numbers. Increased investment in technology, modernisation of the criminal justice system, and more effective partnerships such as those with which his force in Lancashire is taking a lead, are the ways to achieve more effective operational policing. I would like much more of the debate to focus on those aspects, because that is what the people of this country want.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I thank the Government, and the Minister in particular, for giving Staffordshire police the extra money for 83 more police officers, but does he not realise that that comes on top of a cut of 250, for which the Government will be condemned? He blandly says to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that he wants to leave it up to chief constables to decide what they do with the money that they are given, but does he not realise that in real terms, Staffordshire and other police forces get less money than they received in 1997? Is that not, like the Budget, another example of taking one step forward but three steps backwards?

Mr. Clarke: I have discussed precisely those issues with a delegation of Staffordshire Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, and directly with the chief constable of Staffordshire. I am well aware of the issues, and the fact is that we are increasing the money. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Budget, because one of its effects will be to ensure that what was a three-year programme to recruit the extra officers to whom he refers will now be completed in two years, and that at least twice as many officers will be recruited in the first year as had been planned. We are moving the programme forward, and a little grace on the hon. Gentleman's part would be in order.

Active Community Unit

3. Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the work of the active community unit. [116787]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The active community unit, which works across Departments with the voluntary, statutory and business sectors, aims to encourage a step change and an increase in people's involvement in their communities. It focuses on three areas: raising people's awareness of the benefits of community activity and volunteering, making

it easier for them to volunteer, and ensuring that the structures and opportunities are available to allow people to give their time as suits them best.

Mr. Hope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that community regeneration is not just about renewing the fabric of a community—its housing, schools and estates—but about actively involving people in those decisions and in how their community works? Will he visit my constituency in east Northamptonshire to see the work of the Corby volunteer bureau, the volunteer centre in Thrapston and volunteer action in Oundle? They have recruited people—young and old and from all walks of life—into voluntary activity in urban and rural areas. They actively take part in their communities. Will he come to Corby and see how we can make a difference if we promote these policies?

Mr. Boateng: I would be delighted to visit the volunteer bureau in Corby; my officials have already met the manager. It links people with local volunteering opportunities, making the link between rural and urban areas and, importantly, between the older and the younger generation. That is the way to revitalise and refurbish the sense of community that is vital to create successful communities.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How many people are employed in the unit?

Mr. Boateng: I shall drop the hon. Gentleman a line, but I can tell him that the 100 or so people employed in the unit—[Interruption.]—I shall give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure later. I can tell him that those people are all gainfully employed and doing a very good job, which is more than can sometimes be said for the hon. Gentleman.

Asylum Seekers

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What discussions he has had with local authorities outside the south-east about the policy of dispersal of asylum seekers. [116788]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We have had many discussions with local authorities about the dispersal of asylum seekers. The national asylum support service began operating last Monday in respect of all new applicants who have claimed asylum at their port of entry. I am pleased to announce to the House that the new asylum support scheme will be extended to cover asylum seekers who claim asylum in county while in the county of Kent on or after Monday 17 April. The effect of that will be that no asylum seeker making a claim for asylum in Kent on or after that date will be eligible for support from Kent county council or Medway council. I hope that this measure will bring considerable relief to local authorities in Kent. This is the first stage of the roll-out of the support scheme to all in-country applicants.

Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful for that welcome news. I am sure that all Kent MPs will leap to their feet and lavish generous gratitude on the Home Secretary for that answer. Does he agree that the impetus to cluster in


particular areas came about because of the legislation inherited from the previous Government? If he agrees that that is why we have such problems in Thanet and Dover, did he find it helpful when the Conservative party tried to encourage further applications by voting to restore cash benefits for all asylum applicants? Does he find its current posture and language helpful now, when he is trying to encourage local authorities outside the south-east to become involved in the dispersal process?

Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his expressions of gratitude. We look forward to discovering whether similar approbation is offered by Conservative Members. The policy that we are rolling out across the country has certainly been endorsed by Councillor Melvyn Caplan, the Conservative leader of Westminster city council, who has said that the proposals
offer a considerable move forward in the need to introduce a national asylum seeker policy and relieve the pressure—
in this case, in London, but I would add "in Kent".
Of course, the considerable pressure being borne so admirably by Kent county council and the district councils in Kent and London arises directly from the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [Interruption.]The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) laughs, but that is a matter of truth and of fact. I look forward to her telling us who else invented the system, if she did not do so in the 1996 Act.
At the same time as using ill-judged language on the issue, the right hon. Lady must explain why she supported a proposal that would have cost the country an additional £500 million, and would have continued the payment of cash social security benefits to all new port asylum seekers, notwithstanding the House's approval for the new national support system in kind which began operating last week.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When the Home Secretary talks to local authorities, will he be able to help those—including Kent county council and many London boroughs—that have still not been reimbursed by Government for a large amount of their expenditure to date? Will he be able to give them any consolation with regard to the number of applications that can be processed? More case workers are needed, so that the queue can be shortened. Finally, will he be able to commend to them both this morning's statement by the Prime Minister's press secretary, and the declaration signed by all major parties last year? According to that declaration, we need to approach these difficult issues with temperate language, but above all with an accurate statement of the facts and the figures.

Mr. Straw: Just before coming to the House, I checked the position relating to costs that fall to be refunded by the Home Office, namely those relating to the support system operating in, for example, Kent, for—say—unaccompanied minors. We are refunding all expenses that Kent has claimed, or is likely to claim. I hope that the same applies to London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that unit costs must be set, and that when they are exceeded—which they are by a few local authorities, although not by others—there is bound to be discussion with the auditors about why some boroughs have not been able to meet the costs, while others, including Kent, have been able to do so.
I acknowledge that there has been discussion and disagreement with, for example, Kent about what is now a £700,000 shortfall with the Department of Health in respect of unaccompanied minors. That is the subject of continuing discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, because we accept that, when local authorities incur reasonable costs, those costs should be met by central Government.
The hon. Gentleman asked about additional investment to improve output. We have already recruited some hundreds of extra case workers. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that in March the immigration and nationality directorate made 9,000 asylum decisions, as opposed to about 1,000 towards the end of last year.
All the political parties signed the declaration by the Commission for Racial Equality. I was glad to have the hon. Gentleman's approval during a debate on 2 February, when I said exactly what he has said today about the need to ensure that measured language is used. I hope that, in the light of that, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will accept that the language used in the Conservative party's local authority manifesto is certainly not measured, that what it claims is palpably untrue, and that such language must no longer be used.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: (Dover): As we wait with bated breath for the floods of gratitude from other Kent Members for the changes that will be brought in later this month, may I add my support for the changes, not least the civil penalties? Now that it has been confirmed that just about all Kent county council's costs for the support of asylum seekers have been reimbursed, what advice does the Secretary of State have for county councillors who continue to try to attach the cost of keeping asylum seekers to increases in council tax? Does he not agree that that is politics at its lowest?

Mr. Straw: I in turn thank my hon. Friend for his gratitude. I recognise the considerable pressure that his constituents have been under, as have constituents throughout Kent, given the wholly disproportionate burden of asylum seekers that they have had to bear as a result of the system introduced by the 1996 Act. I hope that the change, which will ensure that no new asylum seekers who apply within Kent are a burden on its ratepayers, will help to reduce the overall pressure on such areas; and coupled with that is the new national dispersal system.
As to the costs that have been borne by local authorities, I have seen a number of claims. An argument continues about the £700,000 in respect of Kent and unaccompanied minors. We hope that that can be sorted out, but, apart from that, I have seen no justification for some of the wholly exaggerated claims by Conservative Members and councillors, designed to try to raise anxiety about asylum seekers way beyond the reality. It is a matter for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to try to explain why the Conservative party has embarked on that approach.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: (Maidstone and The Weald): Perhaps I can ask the Home Secretary some very simple questions. Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, leader of Kent county council, does not share his rosy view of what he has just done. Sandy Bruce-Lockhart says that, as a result of the 1996 Act, in the last six months of the previous


Government, Kent had to process 50 asylum seekers and that, today, it processes several thousands every month. The Home Secretary has talked about unjustified statements by councillors. Is that statement justified or unjustified? Is it accurate or inaccurate?
Sandy Bruce-Lockhart also says:
Of those who have been dispersed—
away from Kent—
Kent bear not only the costs but also the casework.
Therefore, if there has been a dispersal to Newcastle and there is, for example, an education problem, Kent workers have to sort it out. That also does not fit with the Secretary of State's rosy picture. Which is accurate—his or that of the leader of Kent county council, who deals with his fiasco every day of the week?

Mr. Straw: I do not remember mentioning Sandy Bruce-Lockhart. The persons I mentioned were the right hon. Lady and others in the Conservative party, who had been making ill-judged statements. However, let me deal with the two specific points that she raised. She said that there had been very few in-country claims shortly after the 1996 Act came into force. That was true because the arrangements that the previous Government had so incompetently provided ensured that there was no provision at all in the Act for in-country applicants. Such people were due to be left wholly destitute.
What happened—conveniently for the right hon. Lady—about six months after the Act came into force was that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords said that what the previous Government had done was wholly unlawful, so responsibility had to fall on local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. Those incompetent and unco-ordinated arrangements flowed directly from the incompetent and unco-ordinated arrangements that she established under the 1996 Act.
I accept what the right hon. Lady says about dispersal away from the county of Kent. However, for the moment, existing applicants remain the responsibility of the local authorities—

Miss Widdecombe: Of Kent.

Mr. Straw: Yes, including Kent. That is all the more reason for us to get the national asylum support scheme in place, and for it not to be disrupted or sabotaged—in the way in which the right hon. Lady sought to do when she voted for an extra £500 million to be spent on eligibility for cash benefits, rather than ensuring that the system got off the ground effectively.

Miss Widdecombe: As a matter of fact and accuracy, I have never voted for an extra £500 million. The amendment that we proposed to the House simply said that the Secretary of State should come to the House and assure us that administrative arrangements were in place. What did he do? He came to the House and had to admit that they were not in place, and that he was going to delay their implementation for another six months. What that proved beyond any doubt was the viability of our amendment. I therefore think that, if he has any decent sense of shame, he might start keeping quiet about his attitude to that amendment, rather than trying to distort what we did.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked several times today about unsuitable language so let me ask him a straightforward question. Does he agree that the large majority of people who come to this country to seek asylum are bogus? Is he prepared to use that word, or does he agree with his recently acquired hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) that the word "bogus" stirs up racial hatred, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has used it five times in recent weeks?

Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the first point, about the £500 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Don't forget the second."' I was asked two sets of questions, and I certainly shall not forget the second one—I never do.
I was asked questions about the £500 million. The simple fact is that, in the other place, the official Opposition voted for the amendment. When I wrote to the right hon. Lady to ask whether that position had the support of the official Opposition in this place, she wrote back to me and said, "Yes, we support the position." She described the amendment, which was to add £500 million of costs in a year, year-on-year, year after year, as "sensible" and "common sense". That was endorsement. Although I quite understand that it caused very great dissension within the Conservative party that she should have shot from the hip yet again and missed the target in the way that she did, the simple truth is that she supported the vote in the other place and backed it in this place. The £500 million was an extra £500 million, on top of the current cost of asylum seekers. Moreover, it would have encouraged a large number of additional unfounded claims for asylum.
We all have a responsibility to choose our language with care. On the figures, about one third—the figure varies from month to month—of applicants who seek asylum in this country have their application either for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain accepted. Although of course we wish to bear down very strongly, as we are doing, on the numbers of unfounded asylum applications, the simple fact is that no one can know whether an application is founded or unfounded, genuine or not, until the claim has been properly examined.
When it comes to ill-judged and unacceptable language, what the right hon. Lady needs to explain is her unbelievable and wholly unjustifiable claim that the Labour party has made this country "a soft touch" for organised asylum racketeers, whom she claims are flooding our country with bogus asylum seekers. She needs to explain that statement not only because it is not true, but because she has voted against two sets of proposals designed to bear down on the racketeers—the first, in 1996, to deal with racketeers directly and to control them properly, which she resisted when we moved amendments from the Opposition Front Bench; and the second, on civil penalties on hauliers who bring in clandestines, which is already working and which she has so vehemently opposed.

Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary promised to answer about the word "bogus", but he did not—I suppose that we must just add that to the list of promises broken. How can the Government say that they have not made this country a soft touch when the facts and figures speak for themselves? We left the Government, under the 1996 Act, a 40 per cent. decrease in asylum seeking. Since then,


the numbers have doubled, and the backlog has more than doubled. Every year, tens of thousands of people who are refused permission to stay still stay on regardless.
The asylum system has deteriorated to unbelievable and unprecedented levels since the Government took power, yet they say that somehow it has nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with them. They presided over the mess. They announced when they came in that they were not going to implement the 1996 Act. They suggested an amnesty for people who had not had their cases determined. They reversed high-profile deportation decisions. They removed the primary purpose rule from the immigration system. The message went out to the rest of the world that Britain is a soft touch. The Home Secretary sent that message—it is his responsibility.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady should have looked behind her. That rant was not impressive even to her erstwhile supporters, still less to the House and the country.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Marvellous. Wonderful.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that with a broad and disbelieving grin across his face.
The right hon. Lady is suffering from amnesia about amnesty. The only party which ever introduced an amnesty was hers, in the early 1990s. After months of my challenging her on the subject, she finally admitted on 2 February that the Conservatives had introduced one, but went on to say:
we have learned from that mistake—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1056.]
It was, as she said, a mistake.
The right hon. Lady suggests that the current asylum situation is entirely the responsibility of the Government. I accept responsibility for many things. One of the first things that I did as Home Secretary was to make it clear in the House that I would be responsible for matters relating to my functions as Home Secretary, but it is ludicrous and it debases debate to imply that the Kosovo war was caused by me as Home Secretary or that the increasing disruption in Somalia, the increasing terrorist disruption in Sri Lanka and the problems in Afghanistan are all down to me as Home Secretary. If they were, I would solve them quickly.
The right hon. Lady should look at more than just six months. Numbers went down immediately after the passage of the 1996 Act. I have explained one reason. Another is that the Dublin convention, which the previous Government signed and which took seven years to come into force, took effect in October 1997 and has made returns very difficult. Numbers have gone up and down. They rose rapidly in the early 1990s and again after the 1993 Act. They have risen in recent months, not least because of disruption in the countries that I have just mentioned. The system deteriorated, not least because of a lack of investment and some extraordinary decisions made by the right hon. Lady when she was in power. I am pleased to tell the House that, as a result of considerable investment, we are greatly increasing the number of claims that are decided on—up to 9,000, which is an all-time record. Although numbers have risen, the time

taken to deal with applications has been cut from 20 months, when the right hon. Lady left office, to 13 months in December of last year.

Identity Parades

Mrs. Ann Cryer: What plans he has to stop accused persons from changing their appearance prior to an identity parade. [116790]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Effective identity parades always depend to some extent on the co-operation of suspects. The Government do not believe that legal powers to prevent them from changing their appearance before a parade would be workable, but if they do so between the taking of a photograph at the time of arrest or after charge and any attempt to hold an identification parade, that may be given in evidence if their case comes to trial. The police may then consider whether an identification can be made by other means. Group identification, use of video film and confrontation are methods specifically provided for in the code of practice on identification procedures.

Mrs. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. May I draw his attention to the case of my young constituent Gemma, who was indecently assaulted last November? Due to the suspect changing his appearance, plus the use of woolly hats and a two-month delay, when she eventually got to the identity parade, she was unable to pick him out. Perhaps we could make greater use of photographs or videos on arrest to protect the likes of Gemma, so that further women and girls do not have to experience such a distressing and unresolved situation.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I have been briefed on the case of Gemma, her constituent. I pay tribute to the campaign work that has been done by Gemma's mother to highlight the issue of suspects changing their appearance prior to identity parades. She assembled a petition and there has been press coverage of this important matter. I emphasise that the code of practice governing identification procedures is under review, so an opportunity is provided to reconsider the detailed rules. A particular issue in the review is how the police should react where the suspect dresses in such a way as to disguise a distinguishing feature, as in the ways mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I appreciate that there is a real problem of a suspect changing his appearance at an identity parade. Will the Minister support my move to bring English law in line with Scots law, where a trial must be brought within 110 days of the accused being charged, for the simple reason that witnesses tend to forget appearance, even down to the colour of a woolly hat, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady raises a fair point for debate. I can confirm that we are considering ways of meeting that point. It is the case that identification parades in particular are made less reliable the more time passes between the event and the parade.

Drug Treatment (Offenders)

Jackie Ballard: If he will make a statement on the availability of drug treatment facilities for offenders. [116791]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): A key element of the Government's crime reduction strategy is to get drug misusing offenders into treatment and thereby reduce drug-related crime.
Initiatives in hand include piloting the drug treatment and testing order and development of arrest referral.

Jackie Ballard: I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that he will be aware of the recent report of Viscountess Runciman of Doxford and the comments within it that it is important that diversion via the criminal justice system does not distort the use of current drug treatment services or the allocation of future resources at the expense of the majority of problem drug users who do not commit crime or who, with effective treatment, could be prevented from committing crime in future. In the light of those comments, what targets will the right hon. Gentleman be setting for the maximum time that anyone, offender or not, should have to wait for drug treatment?

Mr. Boateng: We will not be setting targets, but we will be working closely with the Department of Health, with a view to recruiting about 300 drug workers to complement the existing facilities. There is, as the hon. Lady has identified, a capacity issue. By April 2001, we have a target of 685 drug workers to be recruited and trained. We believe that that will ensure that the concerns that Viscountess Runciman expressed are not realised.

Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the drug treatment programmes will be more successful if a significant number of the drug workers are recruited from outside agencies that have built up expertise, mainly by using former addicts, who have far more credibility in the eyes of prisoners?

Mr. Boateng: We know from experience in the prison service that the voluntary sector, including the use of people who have hands-on, day-to-day experience of having to cope with drug problems in their own life, can make a real and appreciable difference to the success rate in turning people around from drugs.
Pilot projects in relation to work between the probation service, the police and drug addicts have used the voluntary sector. That has proved extremely successful, reducing average drug expenditure from £400 a week to £70, with a corresponding decrease in reliance on crime. That is good news, and the voluntary sector has a vital role to play.

Mr. Peter Lilley: (Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Minister accept that many drug addicts finance their habit by crime? Yet in many areas where addicts wish to break the habit and go on a methadone withdrawal programme, they face a waiting list. They are told to go away and

continue financing the habit, and return in a few months. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his rather complacent answer with this extraordinary situation?

Mr. Boateng: The answer is not complacent. We have recognised the need to recruit more drug workers and we are doing so. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the experience of his time in office and compare it to what we are doing now. This Government have made available an extra £217 million to tackle the deficit in treatment, and that is money that would never have been provided had he been returned to office at the general election.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Minister seen the comment made by a spokesman for RAPT—the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—that while the number of people in prison who suffer from alcohol dependency or whose crimes involve alcohol misuse greatly outnumbers those dependent on illegal drugs, the amount spent on illegal drug misuse in prisons is some £70 million but virtually nothing is spent on alcohol offenders? Why is that?

Mr. Boateng: It is certainly not true to say that nothing is spent. Not as much is spent on alcohol abuse as is spent on drug abuse, but we recognise that the two are increasingly linked. It is important that we have in place the treatment facilities that deal with both where appropriate, and that is what we seek to do.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: (Surrey Heath): Does the Minister recognise that his policies of letting out more than 2,000 convicted drug dealers and more than 200 international drug traffickers are putting ever more strain on drug treatment facilities? Was not his and the Prime Minister's slogan "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" just another bogus slogan?

Mr. Boateng: No, because the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers disguise the fact that the home detention curfew scheme has had a success rate of more than 90 per cent. He and his party supported the proposal on the Home Affairs Committee and his party did not vote against it when it had the opportunity to do so in the House. The scheme is working and it is about better protecting the public, which we intend to continue.

Police Time

Charlotte Atkins: What recent discussions he has had with chief constables about increasing the amount of police officers' time spent on front-line operations against crime and disorder. [116792]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I most recently discussed those matters with chief constables at the Association of Chief Police Officers spring seminar on Thursday. The introduction of best value into the police service and the recycling of efficiency savings into front line policing should allow more police officer time to be spent on reducing crime. Information technology systems being delivered under the national strategy for police information systems and new


radio technology being provided as part of the public safety radio communications project will also do much to free officers from administrative burdens.

Charlotte Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware that Staffordshire police authority spends 18.3 per cent. of its net expenditure on pensions, which is 50 per cent. above the national average. Since our meeting in March, has he had time to consider ways in which Staffordshire might be able to overcome that historic funding problem? Unlike the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I welcome the early recruitment of extra police officers for Staffordshire.

Mr. Clarke: I first pay tribute to the work being done by my hon. Friend in campaigning for proper resourcing for policing in Staffordshire and, in particular, addressing the problem with pensions to which she refers. The increasing size of the pensions component within the funding formula nationally went up from 13.2 per cent. in 1998–99 to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000. As she says, Staffordshire's 18.3 per cent. is among the highest of the proportions being taken out. As my hon. Friend knows from our meeting, we are actively considering the possibility of having a uniform system across all forces, so the same proportion would be taken out. That would involve serious managerial issues, as I know she understands, but we are actively considering the best way to achieve that. I hope that we will be able to advance proposals for consideration before too long.

Mr. James Clappison: Will the Minister give all necessary support to the Hertfordshire police force in its new responsibilities for policing boroughs such as Hertsmere, which were formerly part of the Metropolitan force's area? Is the Minister aware that up to 1 April, there was a perceived lack of any front line police operations—or any other form of visible policing—in Hertsmere, with a total increase in crime of 11 per cent., an increase in violent crime of 51 per cent. and a drop in the clear-up rate of 27 per cent? Is that not an unsatisfactory state of affairs that needs to be put right, and does it not make a mockery of loud claims from Ministers to be better protecting the public?

Mr. Clarke: I certainly can agree to give all support to the forces concerned. I have discussed the matter with the Hertfordshire constabulary and with the Metropolitan police, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bring about the changes that are being made, which were in response to representations from Members of Parliament with constituencies in the home counties.
An Audit Commission report in 1998–99 found that the national average for police officer time spent in public was 52 per cent. The highest figure was in north Yorkshire, at 73 per cent., and the lowest was in Derbyshire, at 40 per cent. We need to achieve much higher and more uniform levels across the country. That is why we are implementing changes such as are taking place in Hertsmere, and why we are making the changes that I mentioned earlier.

Domestic Violence

Siobhain McDonagh: What progress is being made with measures to combat domestic violence. [116793]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We are providing at least £4.5 million through the crime reduction programme for projects that aim to reduce domestic violence.
We have issued fresh guidance to agencies that have to tackle domestic violence, and we have included domestic violence in police best value performance indicators. We continue to take forward the raft of measures set out in the Home Office-women's unit publication "Living without Fear: an Integrated Approach to Tackling Violence against Women".

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am sure that it will hearten everyone involved in trying to reduce the scourge of domestic violence. In my borough of Merton, incidents of repeat domestic violence are 10 per cent. above the London average. In the light of that, will he welcome the borough's initiative to put in a joint bid, with Sutton, Kingston and Richmond, to the crime fighting fund for money for an outreach team to deal specifically with the victims of domestic violence? Will he look kindly on that bid when he receives it?

Mr. Boateng: I very much appreciate the initiative that I know that my hon. Friend has taken in Mitcham and Morden regarding domestic violence. I am glad that neighbouring boroughs are putting partnership arrangements in place. I feel sure that the quality of the bid that is likely to emerge from such partnership arrangements is likely to commend itself to officials. However, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the bid.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will estimate how many asylum seekers are residing in Eastbourne. [116794]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): No asylum seekers have been dispersed to Eastbourne under the interim voluntary dispersal scheme operated by the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and the London asylum seekers consortium, although 1,797 households have been dispersed elsewhere since 6 December 1999.
Information on the number of asylum applicants residing in Eastbourne is not available.

Mr. Waterson: Why cannot the Minister answer a relatively simple question? Why have the Government postponed dispersal arrangements in the south-east, even though London boroughs are still abusing the hospitality


of places such as Eastbourne by dumping asylum seekers there without telling the local authority? Will she and her colleagues stop using patronising and insensitive words and phrases such as "ill judged" and "unacceptable" to describe the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, such as my constituents, as articulated by the Opposition?

Mrs. Roche: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has been elsewhere this afternoon as he cannot have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement about in-country applicants in Kent. He must also have been elsewhere when the announcement was made about asylum support arrangements for people at ports. He must have been somewhere else entirely in 1996, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) introduced the arrangements.
The Government are putting right the shambles that the previous Government created. We will continue to use measured terms to describe the very unmeasured language used by the Opposition.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: When asylum seekers are dispersed around the country to be accommodated in towns such as Eastbourne, which have no history of asylum seekers living in them, is it not all the more important for politicians to take care about the language that they use? Will not the sort of rant that we heard earlier this afternoon and the hysteria in the tabloids lead to serious trouble sooner or later? Asylum seekers will be attacked and harassed, and people will be hurt. In the longer term, will not that cause enormous damage to race relations in this country?

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend speaks with authority and expertise on the subject: not only is he a London Member of Parliament, but he chairs the all-party group which considers refugee issues. He is absolutely correct. We have said with regard to dispersal that we will look into areas where there are multicultural communities and support arrangements. That is why we are also grant-funding the Refugee Council to do just that.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the context of Councillor Caplan's remarks quoted earlier, were the Government prudent to arouse so much hope in so many beleaguered authorities by their overall 1 April start date, when they have patently been unable to deliver it?

Mrs. Roche: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we were very grateful for the remarks made by the leader of Westminster council, which were rather more prudent than those of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members. We have looked at the lessons that have been learned, particularly when the Conservative party was in office, with regard to rolling out the scheme. [Interruption.]The right hon. Lady may laugh, but she was clearly shocked at my right hon. Friend's announcement today about Kent. I should have thought that as a Kent Member of Parliament, she would be rejoicing.

Truancy

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What assistance he proposes for schools and local authorities to combat truancy. [116795]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Truancy is a major contributor to youth offending and can have a devastating impact on a child's prospects for later life. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has allocated extra resources through the social inclusion pupil support grant programme, worth some £500 million over three years, to help reduce levels of unauthorised absence and exclusion.
Secondly, as part of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, we are introducing an increase in the penalty on parents for failing to ensure that a child attends school regularly.
Thirdly, we are considering whether we can encourage the type of scheme that is active in York, for example, in which police, education welfare officers and social services officers work together as a team to pick up children who are truant on the streets and bring them back into education.

Mr. Cunningham: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Will he tell me how much of the £500 million pupil support grant will be spent in Coventry and the west midlands, and what schemes he has in mind?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the detailed breakdown, local education authority by local education authority. However, I can say that a wide range of different types of scheme is being introduced. The most important is to provide proper education places so that children who are otherwise being excluded or truanting can receive a proper education, sometimes in school, sometimes out of school. There have been some successful examples of that in the west midlands, I believe.

Mr. Owen Paterson: (North Shropshire): Who gains if parents of truants are sent to jail for three months?

Mr. Clarke: The main thing is to ensure that parents take their responsibilities—[Interruption.] I will answer the question, but in my own way rather than in the way required by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that parents live up to their responsibilities to make sure that their children go to school, as there is a massive correlation between people who do not attend school early in life and crime later in life. In fact, I believe it extremely unlikely that the courts will choose to imprison a parent, save in exceptional circumstances. Making the offence imprisonable gives the courts much greater flexibility in responding to the circumstances of individual cases.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. John Wilkinson: What was the average time taken during 1999 to decide applications for refugee status for asylum seekers admitted into the United Kingdom. [116796]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): In 1999, the average time taken to decide asylum applications inherited from before July 1993 was 91 months. For those applications lodged after July 1993, the average time taken was 16 months. By December 1999, the time taken had reduced to 13 months, compared with 20 months in April 1997.

Mr. Wilkinson: While the speeding up of the processing is welcome, is it not the case that the number of applicants has doubled since this Labour Government came to power? Is it not also the case that if there are 100,000 applicants waiting now, which I believe is true, some 87 per cent. of those will, at the conclusion of processing, be found to be bogus? Would it not be much better to conclude the processing within, let us say, one month, reducing the burden on the taxpayer and

eliminating the unrealistic expectations that are fed upon by those who encourage this despicable trade in asylum seekers?

Mr. O'Brien: It sounded as if the hon. Gentleman were supporting the Government's policy of a civil penalty, which aims to deal with these issues. For 1999, the figures were as follows: recognised as asylum seekers, 36 per cent.; given exceptional leave to remain, 11 per cent.; not recognised, 54 per cent. That helps put the matter in perspective.
Our aim is to deliver most initial decisions within two months, and most appeals within a further four months, by April 2001. We are meeting the targets for new applications from families with children. About 270 additional asylum decision-makers have been recruited and trained, and are now working. A further 200 are being recruited, and staffing levels are being monitored closely to ensure that output targets are met. New processes have been developed to speed up asylum decision-making without compromising quality.
We are making more decisions than ever before, and we are doing so fairly. We are now reaching the highest number of decisions that has ever been reached in any month. We have more staff working in the system than ever before. Where the previous Government failed completely, we are delivering.

Licensing Laws

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement about licensing reform. I am today laying before the House a White Paper setting out proposals for the comprehensive modernisation of the alcohol, public entertainment and night refreshment licensing laws in England and Wales.
The present laws are complex and no longer match the expectations of the public and the industries concerned or the needs of community safety. For example, the Licensing Act 1964 provides for more than 40 different kinds of licence or permission.
The present system hinders business development and investment. Anyone wanting to change a licence in any way has to follow bureaucratic procedures that generate unnecessary costs and court hearings. There is often considerable duplication with planning controls and health and safety procedures. Many premises serving alcohol also require public entertainment licences, and so their operations have to satisfy an entirely separate and parallel licensing procedure run by the local authorities.
There have been no substantive changes to these laws for almost 40 years, while some aspects of the law have changed little in more than a century. In many ways, the law as it stands makes more difficult the problems of policing and public order. Fixed closing times may encourage binge drinking around last orders, with people hitting the streets—and sometimes each other—at the same time.
The law concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol by children and young people is profoundly confusing. Few people know exactly what the law requires, and those who do see little sense in it. A person aged 17 may enter a bar, but may not purchase an alcoholic drink. A person aged 18 standing next to him may purchase a drink, take it into a pub garden and lawfully give it to a five-year-old.
Venues providing hospitality and leisure are changing a great deal. It is now much more difficult to differentiate between a pub, a café a wine bar or a restaurant. The old licensing categories can no longer keep up with these changes. The effect is to force businesses to obtain multiple permissions at significant additional cost without delivering sufficient benefits or protections to the public.
To modernise the system, the White Paper proposes a single new licensing system which will give people more choice about where and when they eat, drink and enjoy themselves, while providing much better protection against the misuse of alcohol, especially in relation to sales to children. The White Paper proposes stronger powers where licensed premises cause crime and disorder, place the safety of the public at risk or lead to unreasonable nuisance for local residents.
The White Paper therefore envisages that more flexible opening hours should be balanced by clearer licensing criteria and more effective remedies against businesses that fall down on their social responsibilities. The proposals should significantly reduce the regulatory burden on business. In an appendix to the White Paper, we estimate that they should help to cut the costs of business by around £190 million a year.
Responsibility for the licensing system is split between local authorities and magistrates. Magistrates deal with alcohol licensing, while local authorities deal with the licensing of public entertainment, theatres, cinemas, late-night refreshment and planning and development control. We have carefully considered who should have responsibility for running the new streamlined and integrated arrangements, and have concluded that it should be local authorities.
Following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local authorities have important duties to tackle crime and disorder in their areas and are best placed to make judgments about local impact. They are also properly accountable to the people affected by their decisions. We therefore believe that they should decide which premises should be licensed and what operating conditions should apply, albeit within a national framework of clear criteria and under fair and consistent local procedures defined in statutory rules and guidance.
The criminal courts will continue to deal with offences against licensing laws. Local magistrates will therefore continue to have an important part to play in ensuring that licensing laws work properly for the benefit of free and safe communities. Local authorities' licensing decisions will be subject to review by the courts on appeal. We propose that that should take place in the Crown court, but we recognise that there are other options—magistrates or special tribunals, for example—and we are ready to consider representations on that, as on any other issue.
The White Paper proposals can be summarised as follows. There will be a single integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol, provide public entertainment or provide late-night refreshment. It will set out operating conditions, which will relate to the impact on crime and disorder, public safety and public disturbance. Licence conditions should protect against those threats, but not interfere in other ways with how premises are run. The conditions attached to such licences will be set locally according to the balance of the operator's requirements, the views of residents and assessments by police and fire authorities.
A new system of personal licences will allow holders to sell or serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premises. There will be new measures to back up restrictions on under-age drinking. To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, flexible opening hours may be introduced as a condition of the premises licence, with the possibility that some venues—I emphasise that that means only some venues—may operate up to 24-hour opening, seven days a week, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents.
We propose tough and uncompromising new powers for the police to deal quickly with violence and disorderly behaviour by closing premises that licence holders have allowed to become the focus of such misbehaviour. We propose that the age for the consumption of alcohol in licensed premises, and for its purchase, should remain 18, with better provision for the enforcement of those powers. However, 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to consume beer or wine served with a meal.
Children should be allowed access to any part of suitable licensed premises at the personal licence holder's discretion, but licensing authorities would have powers to restrict or deny access by children to unsuitable licensed


venues. The new personal and premises licences would be issued by local authorities. An avenue of appeal for parties, including the police and local residents, would be available through the courts.
Licences would be supported by a flexible range of sanctions—including temporary closure and temporary reduction in opening hours—instead of the present all-or-nothing sanction of loss of licence. In the wake of the Marchioness Thames safety inquiry, there would be new requirements for licensing the sale of alcohol on boats travelling within England and Wales. New arrangements will be made for non-profit-making clubs—working men's, political, ex-services, sports and social clubs—that supply alcohol to their members to preserve their special status.
This is a radical package of measures; I am convinced that it strikes an important and necessary balance between the needs of business and the concerns of local residents. The new measures will be good for the police, because they should help them to cope with late-night disorder and reduce crime. The measures should be good for business, because they will sweep away red tape and offer business real flexibility. They will be good for consumers—citizens and visitors to this country alike—by creating a safer environment in which consumers can have greater choice. They will be good for families, by creating more opportunities for them to spend leisure time together without fear of intimidation or disorder, and by providing better protection against under-age drinking. The measures will be good for local residents, who will acquire a bigger say in a licensing process that will be properly accountable to them.
In preparing legislation to bring proposals before Parliament, we shall welcome and take account of any suggestions for improving the way in which licensing decisions are dealt with, or on any other aspect of the proposals. We ask for responses to be received by the Home Office by the end of July. We shall, of course, consult the Welsh Assembly on the proposals as they may apply to Wales, including on whether there remains a demand for Sunday opening polls.
I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in allowing us to have an early sight of the White Paper. We are not entirely sure about the new format of the document, with all its exciting pictures and photographs, but we are sure that Labour Members will greatly enjoy them.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman is a sharp wit.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to be called that.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend said "twit".

Mr. Heald: No, she did not. I am not getting into that sort of argy-bargy.
I welcome much of the Home Secretary's statement. We believe that it should be possible to move forward constructively in a spirit of consensus. There was

widespread agreement that the licensing laws needed modernising. We agree that the ending of the terminal hour and its replacement with flexible hours should end the practice of drinking to a deadline. The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales commented:
this will contribute to the policing of public disorder associated with drink … we would expect a staggering of closing times—
[Laughter.] I stress that it is a staggering of closing times, not staggering at closing time. I am quoting the association directly.
A simpler system of penalties with a graduated scale is also useful and should enable the licensing authority better to target penalties. We welcome the tougher powers on under-age drinking and the fact that the police will be able to close rowdy houses. The new split system of licensing premises separately from individuals was strongly supported by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association. We believe that it could have benefits. We shall study the White Paper carefully and formulate a detailed and constructive response after careful consultations.
Although there are some points in the White Paper on which we agree, there are—as ever—issues that cause us concern. From a brief reading of the document, three matters are of particular concern.
First, we should resist the attempt to remove all powers from licensing justices, especially when it comes to licensing individuals. I was surprised to read, on page 22 of the White Paper, that it is seriously suggested that individuals should be licensed simply on the basis that they have an accredited qualification, without even being interviewed by a local authority. One would not employ people merely because they had a degree; one would want to see them to find out what sort of people they are.
That point highlights a mistake in the White Paper. Magistrates are used to forming views on the merits of the individuals who appear before them. They know the local area and the problems that the licensee will face. Furthermore, they are aware of the problems that have come up in criminal cases that they have heard. They do not represent any political interests in making decisions on licensing.
The Police Federation today said:
we are totally opposed to powers to grant licences being transferred to local authorities. We believe that these matters should remain a judicial responsibility and not be a political judgment of the local authority.
Will the Home Secretary listen to representations that magistrates should not lose all their powers, particularly over the licensing of individuals, or is his mind closed on that?
Secondly, we are concerned about late-night disorder. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that there is a firm regime to ensure that the changes do not lead to unsupervised late-night disorder making residents' life a misery? In his White Paper, he says that consideration will be given to the views of local residents, but we would like to know how that will be done and whether the presumption will be against residents so that they will have to prove their objections against a presumption in favour of a licence. What estimate has he made of the overall effects of the proposals on alcohol consumption and illness? Can he assure local residents that the measures will improve the situation for them?
Thirdly, we have had representations about Sunday being a special day. Will the Home Secretary explain in more detail the reasons behind his decision not to make any recognition of the special nature of Sunday in these changes? Will he confirm that he has no proposals to treat Sunday differently from any other day? When the proposals are brought to the House in legislation, the Opposition will have a free vote on the question of Sundays; will the Government have a free vote?
Finally, what is the timetable for legislation? We see that there is a timetable for responses, but do the Government aim to introduce these proposals in the Queen's Speech in 2000 or at another time?
There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, but we should like reassurance on those three crucial points. We are prepared to be constructive and to try to reach consensus, but it is important that the Government are prepared to listen.

Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he made his comments. On the photographs, my contribution to the typographical design and layout of the White Paper was to remove additional photographs of myself that I spotted. I am afraid that I take a rather po-faced view about White Papers, but I point out gently that the previous Government introduced the revolutionary idea of including photographs in such documents.
As I made clear in my statement, this is a White Paper, so it contains reasonably firm proposals, but the point of publishing one well in advance of legislation is to seek the views of the House, interested organisations and the public. We shall take those properly into account, and I almost guarantee that the final proposals will differ to some degree from the proposals in the White Paper; that is the whole purpose of having such consultation and open debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers of licensing justices. To pick him up on one detail, if someone simply had an accredited qualification, they would not be granted a licence by virtue of that fact, without an interview. They might be granted a licence without an interview if they also had no previous convictions, which is an extremely important clarification. If they had convictions, they would almost certainly have to be subject to interview. At the moment, licensing justices who have before them someone who has an accredited qualification and no previous convictions are almost bound, as a matter of obligation in law, to issue that person with a licence, unless something else is known about them.
The question of who should make the initial decisions about licences is a matter of fine judgment, which we debated at some length. We continue to be open to argument about that. If we are to have a streamlined system, one authority must make the decisions about all the licences that affect a particular set of premises. At present, the local authorities have considerable sway over the circumstances in which licensed premises operate. The only licence that in practice is issued by the magistrates is the alcohol licence. I appreciate the very good work that has been done in the past by magistrates, and they will continue to have a significant role in these proposals, as I will explain.
It is a matter not of the local authorities exercising a political judgment, with a capital P, but of ensuring that they can develop a policy for determining, for example,

whether 24-hour opening can safely take place without disruption to residents. Typically, that would be only in the centre of large cities and towns. With regard to public houses in residential areas, of which there are many, the authority's policy must ensure that it operates in a way that gives first preference to the interests of the residents. That answers another point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Apart from split responsibility, the problem with using the courts is that courts of law must operate under much less flexible arrangements. As I will take proper account of the hon. Gentleman's points, I ask him to consider this in return: we thought that the sensible way to square the circle was for the local authorities to make the initial decisions about all licensing matters—as I said in my statement, within clear national criteria and clear statutory rules and guidance about how they operate locally—but to provide for a right of appeal to the courts.
I said that our preference was for the appeal to go to the Crown court, where there would be two magistrates sitting with a Crown court judge to hear the appeal. They would be experienced magistrates, so they would have a clear role there. I also said in my statement that although that is our preference, we accept that there are arguments for using the magistrates as the appeal court or for a special tribunal, and we will consider them.
The issue of Sunday is discussed in the White Paper. As it happens, given my Nonconformist background, I am one of those who voted against an extension of Sunday opening hours for shops, but that argument was lost. It is difficult to argue subsequently for special arrangements for Sunday opening for public houses or, say, supermarkets, separate from those that apply to shops. It is better for those to be taken into account in the overall policy set by the local authority, except for Wales.
Unless the law is changed—I take my cue entirely from Welsh Members and the Welsh Assembly—it will be possible to trigger polls in Welsh counties in 2004. That is a matter for the people of Wales, as expressed through their representatives.
On timetable, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more detail, except that we intend to legislate as soon as we can, once we have gathered together the consultations.

Madam Speaker: May we now have a brisk exchange? There are so many hon. Members seeking to put questions that it may not be possible for me to call them all. I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige with brisk replies. Thank you.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In this sensible package of ideas, my right hon. Friend did not mention the difficult matter of the direct connection between alcohol and violence in domestic circumstances. Will he undertake to bear that in mind? Longer drinking hours may result in even greater pressure on those who abuse alcohol, and that is in no one's interest.

Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. My statement was replete with concern about the effect of alcohol on crime.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The White Paper is greatly welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. It seems to contain eminently sensible proposals for the modern age, both for the customer and for business.
I have two short questions. First, can the Secretary of State be slightly more specific? When applications are made to the local authority, as I believe that they should be, will the local authority have absolute discretion to accede to or turn them down—for example, on the ground that there are too many other premises in the immediate area for the extension to be needed or properly managed? Secondly, linked to the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the incidence of violence in or outside public houses in the community be taken into account when applications are considered?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the measures. No absolute discretion will be available to local authorities. They will have to work within the law as this House and the other place provide and, as I have said, under national criteria, statutory rules and guidance. The police and residents will have a right of appeal against any local authority's decision.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is emphatically yes. As he will know from the White Paper, we propose to give the police important additional powers, including one, at the decision of a police inspector or someone above that rank, to close for 24 hours licensed premises where there is serious disorder—under similar powers to those already available to fire authorities.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the proposals will rightly assist those who want a pleasant, social drink, residents whose lives can be made a misery by loud music, riotous behaviour, hooliganism and vandalism, about which I have many complaints in my constituency, will be protected? Will he also confirm that organisations such as Gorton Trades and Labour club will retain its special status?

Mr. Straw: I had Gorton Trades and Labour club at the forefront of my mind when I agreed the proposals; clubs will retain their special status. The proposals in the White Paper will give local residents a much greater say in, and influence over, the licensing arrangements for pubs and clubs. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's comments illustrate the fact that current arrangements are not properly working to safeguard local residents.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the previous question, since the impact of the proposals on inner-city constituencies impinges particularly on the residential community, does the Secretary of State recognise that the number of police supervising the behaviour of licensees in recent decades has remained static, while the number of licences in the west end has risen sharply, and that, until that ratio changes, the residential community will take little comfort from his encouraging reassurances?

Mr. Straw: I acknowledge the particular pressure on residents of areas such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman represents. I also accept that he has not had a chance to read the White Paper. I look forward to his views and those of his local authorities, particularly

Westminster. Modernisation of licensing arrangements and greatly strengthened powers of the police, local authorities and courts should ensure that his resident constituents have a better and safer life.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Pursuant to the previous two questions, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that extension of licensing hours and, indeed, changes of licensed premises are of particular importance in a constituency such as mine. Although I welcome the importance that he attaches to the opinion of local residents, will he ensure that they may know well in advance of any proposal either for extension or change of venue? At the moment, it is virtually impossible for my constituents to know what is proposed.

Mr. Straw: Yes. Current arrangements are obscure and complicated, and residents often do not know about proposals until it is too late. I hope that a simplified but toughened system will ensure that one authority—the local authority—must describe the policies that are to be followed before it makes decisions in respect of individual licences, so that there is proper and effective consultation, not least in the crime and disorder partnerships, for which Camden is a model for much of the rest of the country.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Home Secretary share my fascination with the fact that, owing to the much more liberal and relaxed regime in continental countries—France in particular, but others, too—there is often much less disorder and drunkenness? I therefore warmly welcome the proposals if he has in any way modelled them on the continental experience, and generally welcome his much more liberal and civilised approach to the matter.
I seek a reassurance, however, that sanctions will be tough and effective. Although I strongly support the idea that the licensing regime should be as liberal as possible, it must surely be coupled with strong, reassuring sanctions so that, if disorder arises from the licensing of premises, it will be swiftly and effectively dealt with in the interests of the local community.

Mr. Straw: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am grateful for his support. In the spirit of consensus, I say that it is a refreshing change to hear him speaking up for a policy that is not only liberal but European.

Jane Griffiths: I welcome the long-awaited White Paper, which genuinely reaches the parts that previous White Papers could not reach. My right hon. Friend knows that in an urban constituency such as mine, at least 20,000—mostly young—people, in addition to those who live in the area, come into the town centre on a Friday evening to have a drink. It is becoming difficult for the police to handle the problems of chucking-out time and people drinking to a deadline. We shall all have reason to be grateful for the White Paper if it gets rid of the chucking-out time problem and helps to end the lager lout culture, even if it achieves nothing else.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is chair of the all-party beer group and I am grateful to her and her colleagues for their input. I know about the problems in towns such as Reading; they are not dissimilar from those in my


constituency and many other places. I draw hon. Members' attention to the chart on page 14 of the White Paper. It shows the number of public order incidents that occur not at 10 or 11 pm but at 2 and 3 am as a result of the current inflexible closing times. As I have already said, I hope that the proposals will make a big difference to residents.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I was the victim of an assault by a drunken gang while waiting to pay for a purchase. The assailants got away with it because the closed circuit television was using dummy cameras. I therefore suggest that the Home Secretary should consider making it a condition of licensing that places that sell intoxicating liquor late at night should be obliged to have functioning CCTV in the vicinity.

Mr. Straw: That seems a good idea; I shall take it forward.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I very much welcome the White Paper. Much in it will improve our towns in particular. However, does the Home Secretary acknowledge that local authorities are worried about the additional burdens that it will place on them to police the licensing regime, especially through the night? I have recently spoken to my local authority officers, who do a good job in Luton. They are worried that additional responsibilities will need extra resources. Will my right hon. Friend consult them?

Mr. Straw: In an appendix, we set out our best estimate. It can be only an estimate of the costs of the change for different parts of the system: business, local authorities and others. As I said, we estimate that it should produce savings for business of approximately £190 million a year. Of course I accept that local authorities must be given proper resources for any additional function that they take on.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: (Lichfield): The Home Secretary said that he will invite responses by the end of July, but how flexible is he about whether licensing magistrates or local authorities make such decisions? Has he considered the possibility that one local authority may decide that it does not want pubs to open after 11 pm, while a neighbouring local authority will decide that it is willing for many pubs to open after 11 pm? Is there not a danger of a drift of people from one authority to another, perhaps by car, thus encouraging drink driving? That might be avoided if the decisions were left to local licensing magistrates rather than a political entity.

Mr. Straw: I have already tried to explain why we believe that, on balance, local authorities are best placed to make such decisions. We are open to argument on our proposals in the White Paper. I accept that some issues are matters of fine judgment, and I have tried to spell out some of the considerations.
There is a balance between what we should set out nationally and local discretion. The hon. Gentleman may find that one resort town has decided to cater for one sort of market and another for a different one. Blackpool and Morecambe offer markedly different attractions. Long may that difference continue.

Mr. Paul Flynn: (Newport, West): Does the Home Secretary agree that alcohol is the hardest of all hard drugs?

It kills 45,000 people every year, is involved in half all crimes of violence and abuse and is more toxic and addictive than all illegal drugs. His statement is courageous and rational. When will he apply those qualities to his policies on all other drugs? His statement and his reaction to the Runciman report leave him open to the accusation that he is hard on a soft drug and soft on hard drugs.

Mr. Straw: I did not think that the compliment would continue to the end of my hon. Friend's contribution and I was not disappointed. Alcohol, when abused, can be a very hard drug, but, taken in moderation, people can enjoy it and it is part of society's culture. I do not to believe that there should be a competition for us to determine which drug does the greatest damage. Sadly, for some people in our society, class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine cause as much damage as alcohol abuse—much more, in some cases. We should produce a sensible and proportionate approach to all the drugs that can cause harm in our society.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Home Secretary say a little more about breaches of the licence conditions? Will those in the first instance, particularly administrative or comparatively trivial failures, be dealt with by local authorities and only serious cases go to the criminal system and the magistrates courts? Is he satisfied that he can form a reasonable distinction between the two?

Mr. Straw: Such breaches would initially go to the local authority, but we have drawn an important distinction between the licensing of premises and personal licences, which will be portable. The proposal is that they should last 10 years and then be renewed. There would be a system of endorsements similar to that which applies to road traffic offences—depending on the severity of the offence committed by a licence holder—including the possibility of either immediate disqualification for some flagrant breach or what amounts to a totting-up procedure.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: (Halesowen and Rowley Regis): As a former licensing magistrate, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals and anything that will simplify the complex matter of licences. No doubt members of the Magistrates Association will submit their views to him, but can he reassure me on two points? Will licence applications continue to be heard in magistrates courts in public? Most benches, my own included, regularly inspect licensed premises for security of spirits and standards of cleanliness. Will those continue?

Mr. Straw: The answer to the first question is yes. Hearings would have to be public; it would be wrong for them to be private. If the local authorities take over responsibility for issuing licences as we propose, they will also take on responsibility for inspection. We believe that we have been able to reduce the regulatory burden on business by ensuring that if there is a single licensing system, there can be a single inspection system as well.

Mr. John Bercow: (Buckingham): Is the Home Secretary aware that it veritably warms the cockles of my heart to hear him, as a socialist, elevate for once the cause of personal liberty above that of nanny-state paternalism? Although he is undoubtedly wise and circumspect to say that he will take into account all representations that


he receives, will he nevertheless confirm that in pursuing liberalisation, clarity, consistency and choice will be his watchwords?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the compliment, which I take genuinely in the spirit in which it is intended.

Mr. Bercow: It will not happen often.

Mr. Straw: I realise that. As a socialist, my aim in life is to secure a safe, just and tolerant society in which law-abiding people have the maximum liberty to pursue their lives as they wish. If they are not law abiding, different considerations apply. I think that I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his question.

Mr. Roger Casale: Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the last thing I want to be is a party-pooper, but I share the concerns of many of my constituents, as expressed through the Wimbledon Society, the Wimbledon Union of Residents Associations and Wimbledon Civic Forum, about the severe proliferation of pubs and restaurants in the area. Will he confirm that, as well as giving residents associations and other amenity groups more influence over individual licensing applications, the new legislation will strengthen their hand in shaping the overall balance of shops, recreational and other civic amenities in their areas?

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and he has told me about the particular problems of Wimbledon on several occasions outside the House. What he says about those problems underlines the fact that the current arrangements are not working properly and need reform. That is why we have presented these proposals. I hope very much that the new system will help to ensure that residents, including those in the Wimbledon Civic Forum, can shape the policy and approach on licensing. I do not see how we could get to a position in which central Government determined the number of outlets available. That must be a matter for the market to determine, and the market is changing all the time. We must ensure that the market is properly regulated, and that the needs of local residents and the police to keep order are properly balanced against the demands of the business concerned.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Every time I have been on a police patrol late at night, it is clear that problems come from a small number of premises and a hard core of thoroughly tiresome people. They are well known to the police and to magistrates. How will the

wider public be better served if the experience of the magistrates is not taken into account when a license is considered?

Mr. Straw: The experience of magistrates will be available to the local community. We will certainly consider whether there should be a representative of the magistrates on the licensing committee. This is a matter of balance and fine judgment. I have already made it clear that magistrates will be involved whether the appeal is to the Crown court, as we propose, or to a different tribunal.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that trouble typically arises from a small number of premises. Part of the present difficulty is that the only power available to magistrates is to remove the licence altogether, and that can take many months. The White Paper proposes that an officer of the rank of inspector or above should have a power to close premises for 24 hours on his or her own volition when faced with a disorderly situation—just as the fire authority can peremptorily close premises—and for there to be an appeal to magistrates or the local authority as appropriate. This and other changes that we propose should make a big difference in controlling the minority of premises and drinkers who cause almost all the trouble.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: From my right hon. Friend's statement, I understand that working men's clubs will continue to enjoy their special status. That being so, would he consider requiring a link between their special status and their conversion into either working women's and men's clubs or working people's clubs?

Mr. Forth: Oh, please.

Mrs. Cryer: This is serious. A club at Silsden in my constituency has used every trick in the book to keep women off its committee. That is not only sexist but undemocratic, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would comment on it. Such a measure would certainly have the support of the women in Silsden and many of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Straw: The proposition is for there to be special status for clubs. It would not be a personal licence, because of the club committee. Non-profit making clubs would be licensed—the premises would be licensed. The provisions that I have announced in respect of children would apply to children consuming alcohol whether in clubs or in any other licensed premises.
We will take my hon. Friend's main point into account in the consultation. I do not doubt that there will be some interesting debates when the Bill is before the House.

Madam Speaker: We shall leave it until then. Thank you.

Personal Statement

Mr. Michael Portillo: On Monday 27 March, at the conclusion of the Budget debate, I made some remarks regarding taxation of petrol without reminding the House that I had a registered interest as an adviser to an oil-producing company. It was an oversight, for which I apologise to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Government published the Competition Commission's report on car pricing. The Secretary of State also announced the Government's response to the report in a 10-page press release, and has tabled statutory instruments to implement that response. All that, and no ministerial statement. Is this not yet another example of the Government's treating the House with contempt, and of the Secretary of State's refusing to answer questions about issues of enormous importance to the car industry and the country as a whole?

Madam Speaker: I understand that this is a complicated issue, and that technology broke down. I ask Dr. Howells to explain to the House the handling of the issue.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's release of the Competition Commission's report on the supply of new motor cars was undertaken in line with previous Governments' statements involving market-sensitive material. It was decided to lay the report in Parliament at 11 am today, and simultaneously to inform the stock exchange and release it to the media.
In the event, there was a technical problem at the stock exchange, which meant that publication time had to be delayed. Because the embargo time for the media lapsed, details of the report began to be published before the notice was released on the stock exchange. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry therefore decided to release the report to the media at the same time as it was laid in Parliament, at 12.50 this afternoon. He provided a detailed answer, as the Government's response to the report, at 3.30 pm.
We make no apologies for taking action to ensure that consumers get a better deal when it comes to buying cars in this country. Ordinary families are paying over £1 billion more than they should be paying, and we intend to do something about it.
On behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, I apologise unreservedly for any discourtesy that may have been shown to the House this morning.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a gentle point of order, with, I confess, a whiff of grievance.
During Home Office questions today, it took 21 minutes to deal with one question. Once upon a time, the House got through 30 or 35 questions in a session. Part of the reason was that, if a controversial issue was involved, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Minister tabled a question by private notice. If there are to be long and important exchanges on fraught issues, should not the Procedure Committee reflect on the possibility of using the private notice question device, rather than making it impossible for us to get beyond Question 12?
As I said, I have a grievance: I tabled Question 15, on the difficult issue of Hilda Murrell. Others, however, were also disappointed.

Madam Speaker: It had not gone unnoticed by me that the hon. Gentleman's question was Question 15. That certainly should have been reached. As for Question 4, the hon. Gentleman is quite right: on finding that a question of that nature has been tabled, the Secretary of State often prefers to answer it at the end of Question Time, thus making the answer into a form of statement.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) decided, rightly in my view, to use her entire allocation of three questions on Question 4. That was quite proper, and quite in order. The issue was the dispersal of asylum seekers, a highly interesting and contentious issue, in the country and in the House. It was quite right that there was a good exchange across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is clear from a report published last week that the Government are cutting aid to the people of Ethiopia and Mozambique while increasing support for the Government of Zimbabwe, who are engaged in ethnic cleansing. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House and explain these baffling decisions, which, on the face of it, are extraordinary and unjustifiable? I think that the people of this country need an explanation.

Madam Speaker: There has been no request by the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement on that issue. I believe that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is answering questions tomorrow and that three questions will be reached on Zimbabwe, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House provides ample time for Adjournment debates of half an hour and an hour and a half, when such an interesting issue can be debated. The Minister would be there and would be required to give some answers and explanation.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill will provide the Government with the necessary powers to implement a strengthened nuclear safeguards system in the United Kingdom by bringing into effect an additional protocol to our existing nuclear safeguards agreement with the European Atomic Energy Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency. That will fulfil the UK's commitment to help to strengthen the effectiveness of the international system for detecting clandestine nuclear activities in non-nuclear weapons states.
May I explain a little of the background to the Bill? After the Gulf war, Iraq was found to have been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, even though it had in force a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the agency. In response to that discovery, the international community agreed that there was a need to strengthen the international nuclear safeguards system by giving the agency additional information and rights of access to nuclear facilities and to other relevant locations. States throughout the world are negotiating and signing legally binding additional protocols with the agency to provide it with that information and with those rights.
To date, additional protocols for 48 states have been signed. Eight have entered into force. Like most states, the UK needs to put legislation in place to ensure that we can fulfil our obligations under our additional protocol.
The UK additional protocol was signed in Vienna on 22 September 1998, along with the additional protocols for France and for the 13 non-nuclear weapons state members of the European Union. Our additional protocol requires the UK to provide information to the agency about nuclear and nuclear-related activities carried out for, or with, non-nuclear weapons states.

Mr. Eric Forth: If it is a matter of any importance at all, how can the Minister explain the considerable time lapse between the signing in September 1998 and the introduction of the Bill now, well into 2000?

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman, whose defence of liberty I always admire, as he knows, prevented the Bill when it was in another form—a private Member's Bill—from being brought forward perfectly properly under the rules of the House. I am now attempting to put matters right.
The information that we provide, along with that gathered from other states, will enable the agency to draw up a comprehensive picture of nuclear activity in non-nuclear weapons states. That will enhance the agency's ability to detect signs of suspicious activity that may be indicative of clandestine nuclear programmes and to act as a strong deterrent to the development of such programmes.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will understand that the Bill is of great concern to the House,

albeit not to Labour Members, all of whom seem to have disappeared to the Tea Room. He is ensuring, rightly, that the UK will comply with the agency. However, what about countries such as North Korea or Iraq? How many other rogue states are there around the world that have nuclear capability, but are refusing to sign the protocol?

Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, I am glad to say that I am the elected Member for Pontypridd, not for Seoul or for any other part of the world, and that I cannot answer for them.
We need the Bill's legal powers to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the new additional protocol. The Bill's core elements can be found in clauses 2 and 5.
The first element—clause 2—is required because much of the information that the additional protocol requires the United Kingdom to pass to the agency will not originate with the Government. Therefore, the clause enables people to give relevant information to the Secretary of State, unrestricted by any obligation of confidentiality or limit on disclosure that would otherwise inhibit them from doing so, although any such obligations and limits will still apply for other purposes. It is anticipated that the great majority of the information required by the agency from the United Kingdom will be given to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry voluntarily by those who have it.

Mr. David Maclean: Although I appreciate that the Minister is the hon. Member for Pontypridd, rather than for Seoul, nevertheless he is today moving the Second Reading of a Bill that would implement an international protocol to an internationally agreed nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Surely he could tell the House how many other countries, to date, have signed up to the additional protocol. I am sure that that is information that the Foreign Office is bound to supply.

Dr. Howells: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has come into the Chamber a little late. As I said, 48 states have signed up to the protocol and four have enacted it. We want to be the next in line.
In the event that a person is unwilling to provide information that the Government need to fulfil a United Kingdom obligation under the additional protocol, there obviously has to be a means of compelling that person to do so. Therefore, clause 2 also enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice on someone, with a criminal sanction for non-compliance, requiring him or her to give relevant information.
Clause 5 is the Bill's second core element. The clause gives inspectors designated by the agency a right to enter certain locations in accordance with the additional protocol and to conduct in those places specific activities that the additional protocol requires to be permitted. Those activities are essentially designed to check information that we and other countries have provided to the agency. Although, we would usually expect access by agency inspectors to be granted on a voluntarily basis, the Bill makes it a criminal offence to obstruct inspectors in performing their functions or to interfere with anything placed on land by an inspector in the course of those functions.
It is envisaged that visits from agency inspectors under clause 5 will occur mostly at the sites of the major nuclear companies. All those companies have expressed their support for the new measures. The precise activities that may be conducted by the agency inspectors under clause 5 will depend largely on the location in question and the reason for the access.

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Howells: I shall certainly give way in a moment.
The activities that may be performed include, for example, visual observation, collection of environmental samples, use of radiation detection and measuring devices, and, of course, examination of records.

Mr. Forth: The Minister has said that the proprietors or operators of what he has called nuclear sites have said that they are content with the provisions of the Bill and the protocol. However, does he accept that the wide powers given, particularly those in clause 5, go much further than that, and that he therefore cannot make any presumption about a general consent or relaxation about the wide powers in the Bill? What measures have the Government taken to assess, outside the rather narrow nuclear fraternity, opinion on the powers given in the Bill?

Dr. Howells: We have made our intentions abundantly clear for a long time. We have not heard of any serious worries from any quarter. I shall try to deal with some of the problems that I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to highlight.

Mr. John Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's oration. I regret only that he has such a poor audience on the Labour Benches. Has he been overwhelmed by support from outside bodies for the apartheid that the Bill creates between authorised officers of the British Government, who have to satisfy a justice of the peace before they can invade private property, and international agencies, who have a fiat to trample over the private property of United Kingdom citizens with no justification or explanation?

Dr. Howells: No.
Clause 5, Madam Speaker, gives effect to one of the key obligations under the protocol. It is a fundamental aspect of the protocol that, if a state has provided information to the agency—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should have said Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a problem with advancing age. Agency inspectors must have a right of access to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the information provided, subject only to the conditions provided for in the additional protocol.
The remaining clauses are secondary to clauses 2 and 5. I shall outline them briefly so that hon. Members understand the overall structure of the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for his confirmation a moment ago that he had not been overwhelmed by support for the apartheid that the Bill creates. Has he been overwhelmed by strong opposition to the authoritarian character of his proposals?

Dr. Howells: No.
Clause 3 is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to identify those from whom he requires information. It enables him to make regulations requiring persons—that includes companies and other bodies, such as universities, as well as individuals—to inform him if they carry out certain types of activity or have certain information that he may need.
Clause 4 enables an officer authorised by the Secretary of State, having obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace—I know that hon. Members are concerned about this—to enter any premises in the United Kingdom to search for information that has been required by the Secretary of State in a notice under clause 2, but that the person served with the notice has failed or refused to provide. That is envisaged as a last resort power, but it is needed because a power to prosecute does not guarantee that the necessary information will be provided. The clause also covers entry when documents or other things containing information needed by the Secretary of State are at risk of being destroyed, altered or disposed of, so preventing the Secretary of State from obtaining information.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am doing my best to keep up on this technical matter. The Minister said that the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to ask for information, but if the company concerned will not tell him, how on earth does he know what to ask for?

Dr. Howells: That is a good point. Hon. Members should not look smug. Looking smug and grunting would not have sorted out the problem of arms to Iraq, still less the manufacture of nuclear triggers and other components that could put the lives of a great many people, including British soldiers, under threat.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that somebody had been grunting. Could you advise me who it was?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I did not hear anybody grunting.

Dr. Howells: This is a very old building. I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Clause 6 protects information obtained under the Bill or the additional protocol. It prohibits the disclosure of certain types of such information except for certain purposes or in certain circumstances, and sets out penalties for disclosure in breach of those limits. The clause is aimed primarily at civil servants who deal with the information to be passed to the agency or who accompany agency inspectors on visits.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister has moved on rather faster than I expected. I am still thinking about clause 5. Will he name any public bodies outside the nuclear industry that support the extraordinary powers given to an extra-national body to enter the private property of a British citizen without any appeal mechanism?

Dr. Howells: We have received no objections from any manufacturing company or private individual. There was


an extensive debate on the matter in another place, and their Lordships were satisfied with the assurances that they were given and with the text of the Bill.
Clause 7 makes it an offence knowingly or recklessly to give false or misleading information under the Bill. Clause 8—

Mr. Fabricant: How would clause 7 affect British Nuclear Fuels Ltd?

Dr. Howells: I am here to talk about the work that goes on within Britain in various manufacturing plants, which is done in co-operation with a non-nuclear weapon state. I am not aware that British Nuclear Fuels is involved in any such deal. It would seem that that issue is outside the remit of the Bill.
Clause 8 provides persons authorised by the Secretary of State, having obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace, with the power to search premises for evidence of an offence under the Bill.
Clause 9 sets out the penalties for failing to comply with various provisions of the Bill or interfering with things done under the Bill. Generally, such offences are to be punishable in a magistrates court by a fine up to the statutory maximum, which is £5,000, or after a jury trial by an unlimited fine. However, knowingly or recklessly giving false information under the Bill is to be punishable in the magistrates court by a fine of up to the statutory maximum or, after a jury trial, by an unlimited fine or up to two year's imprisonment, or both.
Clause 9 deals also with a case where a corporate body or a Scottish partnership is found to have committed an offence under the Bill and allows persons of authority in the body, or partners, to be charged if they were involved in the commission of the offence.
The remaining clauses set out how a notice under the Act may be served; amend the Act, implementing the original safeguards agreement of 1976 to bring it in line with the Bill and with corresponding provisions of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996; and deal with commencement, territorial extent and the short title.
I fully expect those who are affected by the new measures to co-operate with them voluntarily. Indeed, we are not aware of any prosecutions under the Act implementing the original safeguards agreement of 1976 and the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978. Those concerned have always acted responsibly and co-operated with the Department voluntarily.

Mr. Nick Gibb: In essence, the purpose of the Bill is to give powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency to enter premises without a warrant from a justice of the peace so that the IAEA will have the same powers in the rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq. Is it not odd that those states are not signatories to the additional protocol? We are implementing it in the expectation and hope that those countries will sign it and that its powers will be implemented in those states. What progress has been made in persuading those countries to sign the protocol?

Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, this has always been an international effort. If we do not sign

the protocol, how can we expect rogue countries to do so? That is complete nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservative party is opposed to these agreements, he should tell us. In the meantime—I very much look forward to his speech—the Government will try to set a good example by signing up to additional protocols.

Mr. Gibb: The Opposition support these measures and give the Government and the agency the benefit of the doubt on the issue. However, I asked the Minister for information to help the House in scrutinising the Bill. Where are we internationally in terms of persuading those countries to sign the protocol? The Minister should know, because he is introducing the Bill.

Dr. Howells: As I have said, many countries have already signed up and the agenda will be taken further by a conference on 24 April. We are making progress, but it is important that this country sets a good example.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Howells: No, I shall try to finish now. Without a mechanism for compelling people to provide the relevant information to the Government, and for ensuring a right of access for agency inspectors, we could not guarantee compliance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the additional protocols, in the—albeit unlikely—event that someone was not prepared to co-operate voluntarily. As I have said, we do not so far have an example of someone refusing to co-operate.
It is also worth emphasising that the burden on business of the new measures is minimal. [Interruption.] A regulatory impact assessment prepared by my Department showed that the estimated cost for businesses likely to be affected by the new safeguards measure would be around £150,000 in the first year. That is minimal compared with the cost of existing safeguard measures, which is more than £10 million a year for BNFL alone. The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be a few thousand pounds.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) asked how many countries have enacted such legislation, but can the Minister tell us whether the United States of America has ratified the protocol?

Dr. Howells: No, the US is considering ratification at the moment. The additional protocols still have to be taken through Congress.
It is worth repeating that, without the mechanism for compelling people to provide the relevant information to the Government and for ensuring a right of access to agency inspectors, we could not guarantee compliance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the additional protocols in the unlikely event that someone was not prepared to co-operate voluntarily. That is very important. I would also emphasise that the burden on business of the new measures will be minimal. Hon. Members were talking among themselves when I mentioned that point earlier, so I wished to repeat it.
I note that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled an amendment that questions the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I assure him that the Government are committed to upholding the principles of individual human rights set out in the European convention on human rights and in that Act. In drafting the Bill, careful consideration has been given to ensuring that its measures uphold the principles set out in the convention and the Government are satisfied that the Bill's provisions are fully compatible with those principles. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the issue was discussed during consideration of the Bill in the other place. We took the opportunity then to consider the point in detail once more, and we are satisfied that nothing in the Bill is inconsistent with the convention. However, I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's misgivings on that point.

Mr. Forth: It will take a long time.

Dr. Howells: I have no doubt of that, and I am fully prepared for it. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied on that point and is reassured that the matter has been given the careful consideration that it deserves.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for identifying the modest contribution that I have made so far, and I shall make a more substantial contribution later. He may be surprised to hear that I am not prepared to accept the general reassurances that he has given. He will know that there is great difference in substance between the rights granted under clause 4, and those granted under clause 5. I would accept his reassurances about clause 4, but clause 5 gives us all much greater concern.
How can the Minister square the rights in the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 with the untrammelled rights that would be given to foreigners to trample over British citizens' property and possessions?

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman is right to identify clause 5 as the key provision in the Bill. Unlike clause 4, it does not require a warrant to be issued before access to premises is sought. A requirement to obtain a warrant is considered an appropriate control on the exercise of a general power to enter a premises, and especially on a power to search for items or information or to collect evidence for possible use in a prosecution. Clauses 4 and 8 contain general search powers of that sort, and those powers are exercisable only on the granting of a warrant. However, as the right hon. Gentleman says, clause 5 does not provide a power to enter premises and conduct a search, nor one to enter premises and carry out activities in general terms.
The agency's rights under clause 5 relate only to entering premises to conduct certain tightly defined activities. As such, a warrant provision in clause 5 is not considered necessary or appropriate.
I hope that, in the light of these remarks, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will reconsider his amendment. I also hope that the Opposition will give their wholehearted support to this new and important non-proliferation measure. Germany, Spain and the Netherlands have succeeded in completing their

legislative procedures and are in a position to ratify their additional protocols. We must now focus on our efforts to ensure that we can do likewise.
I emphasise the importance of making good progress towards putting the legislation in place before Easter. On 24 April, the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty starts in New York. Last year, the United Kingdom, along with our EU partners, made a public commitment to make every effort to conclude our ratification procedures for entry into force of the additional protocol in time for that conference.
The conference will be an important event for the United Kingdom, which is a leading proponent of nuclear non-proliferation and a state with nuclear weapons. We hope to be able to report that significant progress has been made towards the objective.

Mr. Maclean: Has the Minister's Department had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers or the police service about clause 5(5), which would put a British police constable under an obligation to give help or assistance, or to use force, under the orders of a foreign inspector? If so, what was the view of the British police on the matter?

Dr. Howells: Yes, I believe that extensive discussions have taken place. I hope that Conservative Members are not about to raise the spectre of foreign inspectors trampling through Britain. I remind them that those inspectors may well be British—indeed, they may be English. We are talking about an international agency, and we have many distinguished inspectors.
I am sure that Conservative Members would love to throw a net over all the inspectors and call them filthy foreigners. However, that would be a big mistake, and they must be very careful: this country has played a great part in the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in ensuring that our expertise, built up over many years, is used to best effect.

Mr. Keetch: Will the Minister agree that rhetoric in the House, even when the banter is good natured, could be used by other countries to justify their exclusion of their foreigners? We should be careful that representatives of the United Nations and other international bodies in which this country plays a leading role are not simply called foreigners.

Dr. Howells: The hon.Gentleman has expressed this far better than I could. Those are the words that Saddam Hussein used to drive out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. I assume that Conservative Members will not behave in a similar way.

Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Howells: No, I am about to finish.
To sum up, let me say that enacting the Bill will represent a clear demonstration of the United Kingdom's strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. As a nuclear weapons state, it is incumbent on the United Kingdom to take a strong lead on the issue as a tangible illustration to the European community and the world that


we do not procrastinate when it comes to our non-proliferations obligations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Madam Speaker did not select the amendment that is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate the Minister on setting out the Government's position very clearly. The Bill is one of those measures that appear relatively straightforward and uncontroversial on the surface, particularly to any Government wishing to fulfil their international obligations. The logic behind it seems compelling. The United Kingdom, under successive Administrations, has had a good record in this respect, and Conservative Members want us to continue to enjoy that reputation.
That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) objected to the Government's trying to slide this very important issue through as a private Member's Bill. We do not want to send a message to the rest of the world that we regard this measure as so unimportant that we will just stick it through as a private Member's Bill. Frankly, that is just not good enough, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has been successful, in that the Bill is being debated in the House and will now go through the proper procedures and become a proper Government Bill in the fullness of time.
I have to confess one minor worry—the Minister said that he would like to see this done by Easter. I am not sure whether the procedures of the House are such that that can happen, given that the Bill has to be considered in Committee and on Report; I am unaware that the Report stage is to occur on Good Friday, for instance. Wherever possible, we wish to help and to expedite the proceedings.

Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has another worry. Was he not as concerned as I was that when the Minister referred to the United Kingdom's international policy on North Korea, he thought that Seoul was the capital of North Korea.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend, as always, makes his point in his own inimitable fashion. I can understand that as the Minister was born in south Wales, and does not travel very far, he may get muddled about where Seoul is. I suffer from the same problem.
As some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, not every country seems to share the justifiable ambitions of this Government and the others who have so far ratified and implemented the treaty. I think that this issue is a bit like the issue of dog licences. Right hon. and hon. Members may wonder how on earth I can draw such a parallel. During earlier Sessions of Parliament, the House has debated dog licences ad nauseam. Eventually, it dawned on people that the good guys will get dog

licences, look after their dogs and make sure that they have a tag, while the bad guys will not. We should be focusing our attention and efforts on the bad guys.
The same applies to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons which came into force in 1970, and the subsequent efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons technology. One of the principal aims of the treaty has been to try to prevent the diversion of peaceful research and development of nuclear energy into the development and production of nuclear weapons. We all say amen to that. States that did not have nuclear weapons have been encouraged—and cajoled in some cases—to enter into agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to inhibit them from going down the nuclear path.
Like the four other declared nuclear weapons states, this country has entered voluntary safeguard agreements with the IAEA under which inspectors have been granted access to our facilities for the purpose of monitoring the production of potentially fissile materials and for tracing them from the time of their production.
Since 1991, we and our partners—together with other countries—have been engaged in tightening up the systems and safeguards, resulting in the additional protocol that we signed with the IAEA in September 1998 and to which the Bill gives full force.
Not to put too fine a point on it, we have been one of the good boys—or, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) would have it, one of the good persons—in terms of meeting international obligations. Others have not. No one needs reminding of the IAEA's failure to detect the development of clandestine weapons programmes in Iraq and North Korea. Iraq was a member of the IAEA. India and Pakistan were and are members, but that has not stopped them developing their own nuclear weapons in breach of their agreements with the IAEA. It may be that Libya is going down the same route.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is worried about the Russian nuclear submarines that are rusting away in the Arctic circle, adding steadily to all the environmental pollution that has occurred there.
I am a little sceptical about the effectiveness of marching to the drumbeat of the IAEA. However, it is the only show in town, and it is important that we demonstrate our willingness to live up to our obligations and to repeat the commitment made by our Conservative colleagues in another place generally to support the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: While it is instructive and reassuring to know that, under clause 4(7), no constable shall search someone of the opposite sex, what recourse does a private individual have against the improper use of powers contained in clause 5? If the answer is that there is no formal recourse against an inappropriate use of the clause, how has the Minister been able to satisfy himself that the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998?

Mr. Page: It is a matter of deep regret to me that I am not the Minister in control of these matters. If I were, I am sure we would have proceeded with sweetness and light, without all of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall touch fleetingly on that subject later; I am sure that the Minister will give crystal-clear answers that will satisfy everybody, and we will all live happily ever after.
There are questions which need answering. The Bill extends the powers of the Secretary of State to require information or records to be kept. Where it is suspected that offences may have been committed under the Bill, it will give his authorised officers and inspectors from the IAEA enhanced rights of entry to the premises and business of corporations, and even into the homes of private individuals, in search of information. That extends even to the colonies of the UK.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain precisely to what range of installations the record-keeping requirements set out in clause 2 will apply. Some facilities, such as the nuclear reprocessing facilities at Sellafield or the nuclear power stations at Dungeness or Bradwell, are obvious. It is unclear how far university research facilities may be affected. Cambridge university was recently fined a small amount for losing track of nuclear material handled in its laboratories. I assume—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that the Bill will apply to university facilities.
Will the Minister discuss the cost implications of the new requirements? He has fallen into the trap of dismissing the sums of money involved as small ones. That shows that the Government do not understand business. As the Bill passed through the other place, we were told:
The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be in the order of a few thousand pounds per year.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 777.]
It was implied that, as the sum was just a few thousand, we need not worry. As one who knows a small amount about the small business sector, I can say that such sums do matter. A few thousand here or there, or a few regulations here or there, can put a perfectly viable business on the borderline. I wish that the Minister would be clearer on the impact of costs on our smaller businesses.
What requirements will the record-keeping organisation have to meet? Guidance will be issued by the DTI's safeguards office following discussions between the IAEA and the Government. New recording procedures may be necessary, but the Government have given little indication of the period over which such novel demands might be introduced. The House can reasonably ask for that information before we accept clause 2.
From the point of view of the small business—the Conservative party is the small business man's friend—we know that the extra burdens and duties imposed by new regulations will mean that, instead of getting on with running a business, small business men or women will be consigned to filling in lots of forms to satisfy the Government's insatiable desire for information.

Dr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman name for me one or two firms that have ever complained about the onerous burden that he so beautifully describes?

Mr. Maclean: They have not seen the regulations yet.

Mr. Page: The voices off mean that I need offer no response to that. May I remind the Minister of what I have just said? His Department has given little indication of the period over which novel demands may be introduced.
What extra compliance will be required? Until businesses know that, they cannot know whether to complain. The Minister is putting the cart before the horse. I have absolutely no doubt that when some organisations read the new demands, they will say, "Not another burden on business; we can add it to the record of 1999 when more burdens were placed on businesses than in any other year of this country's existence."
I shall move on because I do not wish to be accused of delaying matters. May I request further information on the requirements of clause 2(7)? What will the Minister's legal advisers regard as a "reasonable" excuse by a person who fails to comply with a notice requiring certain records to be kept or retained? I recently served on the Committee that considered the Postal Services Bill, in which the word "reasonable" was discussed several times, but I am still waiting for the Minister in charge of that Bill to produce a definition. What would or would not be justifiable as an excuse? Would a failure by the safeguards officer of the DTI to supply a copy of guidance be an excuse?
I am also interested in the regulations that the Secretary of State may make under clause 3, which has one of those lovely, cryptic openings so beloved of parliamentary draftsmen. It states:
The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description and to give such supplementary particulars as may be so specified.
That shows that Sir Humphrey is alive and well and living in the DTI.
After several hours of trying to work out what that provision meant, I decided that, in plain language, it puts the onus on individuals and organisations to identify themselves to the Secretary of State. However, if they are not aware that they should be thus identified—if individuals have not been informed by their employers that they fall into that category—how are those with only a peripheral involvement in such matters to proceed? How will they be clearly identified? Will every junior lab technician at nuclear power plants be included? It would be helpful if the Minister could put some practical flesh on that point in his reply. Obviously, the more extensive his response now, the less will be the need for further debate and questioning on other occasions. Any information gathered about such individuals or organisations must be passed on to the IAEA according to subsection (2)(a) of the clause. What security procedures has the Department agreed with the IAEA to ensure that such information remains confidential? Will the Minister assure us that the agency's procedures are as good—if not better—than those operating in the UK?

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am by the fact that the United Kingdom will sign that important protocol—if the Bill is passed—but that countries such as the Ukraine, North Korea, Libya, Israel, India, Pakistan, Belarus, Iraq and Iran have gone nowhere near it?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend again makes an important point. Not only am I not the Minister in charge of the Bill and thus unable to answer such questions—as I said before—but I am not in charge of all the countries that he mentioned. I hope that when all our questions are answered and we sign the protocol, we can encourage,


by example, some of those countries to tread the path of righteousness and truth so as to bring a little security and stability to the world.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend referred to righteousness and truth. Is he therefore impressed by the fact that the Holy See has signed up to the additional protocol?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has upset me, because I had planned to devote a considerable part of my short introduction to the splendid example set by the Holy See in the matter. I am not too sure about its nuclear capability and capacity.

Mr. Robathan: The ultimate deterrent.

Mr. Page: The Holy See offers a splendid and commendable example to which I hope that the Minister will draw attention in his remarks.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: A different sort of missal.

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, rather than making remarks from a sedentary position, I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been too many sedentary interventions. I remind the House that the subject is extremely serious.

Mr. Page: Thank you for your support and protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am a firm supporter of nuclear power. It is one of the cleanest forms of energy and it should be more widely used in this country. However, because of the way in which that power can be corrupted and wrongly used, it is vital that information about it does not pass into the wrong hands—certainly not to members of active terrorist organisations.
I can think of no reasonable objection to creating powers to enable the Secretary of State to obtain information or records that have been withheld or not supplied and are required under the notice that he has issued. It is not clear why the power of entry in clause 4 to search for information that should have been supplied to the Secretary of State should be exercised at any reasonable hour.
Again, that lovely word "reasonable" is used, and I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to enter business premises or a private dwelling between 7 am and 11 pm but not after 11 pm? Is the dawn raid no more? Will there no longer be a knock at the door at 5.30 am? I would be grateful if the Minister—who can seek advice from all his sources—could advise us what is meant by reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), ever conscious of the need to have balance in our lives, has already pointed out the difficulties of providing officers of each sex to do a search. Every search team will need a woman police constable so that the job can be done properly.

Mr. Robathan: This is an important point. I accept what the Minister has said about the search procedures,

but if it is so important to discover illegally held material on somebody's person, it is a little worrying that the absence of a woman police officer might mean that the person hiding that material would get away with it. Surely we must decide whether the needs of international nuclear disarmament should take priority over political correctness.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend endorses the comment that I just made. The wording of the Bill means that a search will have to include male and female officers if it is to be effective. That is right, and nobody should be given the chance to evade the requirements of such important legislation.

Mr. Keetch: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in all forms of search by all agencies in the United Kingdom there is always a male and a female officer present? Is he not aware that if a person to be searched were of the opposite sex to the officers conducting the search, there is no reason why that person could not be held until an officer of the same sex was available? Surely he should move on from this point?

Mr. Page: I am more than prepared to move on; I was saying that the Bill covers that point—and I do not find that objectionable or offensive. The hon. Gentleman can make his own points about other aspects of parliamentary activity and legislation, although they would have to be in order, otherwise Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rightly come down on him and keep him in line.
As the Government made clear in another place, clause 5 is central to the Bill, and a number of my hon. Friends have homed in on that point. It has been made abundantly clear that the IAEA is not, and never has been, party to the European convention on human rights, and that the Government believe that the powers to be granted to IAEA inspectors to enter premises do not breach the convention. I am aware of the exchanges on that issue which took place in another place.
Nevertheless, I wonder whether the Department's confidence is entirely well founded. The extremely careful language used by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 13 December and 24 January indicated that he anticipated potential legal challenge from UK citizens whose premises or homes might be entered by IAEA inspectors without warrants granted by justices of the peace. It was admitted in the other place that
the courts should be able to decide for themselves whether that inconsistency—
that is, between the requirements of clauses 4 and 5 with regard to a warrant—
was relevant to any offence with which a person was charged under the Bill—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1349.]
Does that give the game away? Does that mean that the courts could decide that the Bill infringes the European convention on human rights? if they do, the blame will rightly lie at the Minister's feet.
Of course it is right to restrict the disclosure of information obtained from persons subject to the provisions of the Bill or the additional protocol. I understand that there are circumstances in which such information may be disclosed. There should be no difficulty if the person from whom the information has been obtained consented, as envisaged by clause 6(2).
Clearly, information that is relevant to criminal allegations or offences must be disclosed to the prosecuting authorities, but what is the position of individuals or companies affected by the disclosure of commercially sensitive information in criminal proceedings that fail? One can easily envisage a situation in which information about nuclear fuel reprocessing—for example, at Sellafield, which is a highly sensitive subject—might be of great interest and value to competitors overseas. What redress would there be for individuals or organisations found innocent of alleged offences?
The fact that many of the provisions of clause 8 duplicate those of clause 4 has already attracted comment in another place. Clause 4 determines how information may be sought, if it is not supplied to the Secretary of State, and clause 8 deals with the powers that officers authorised by the Secretary of State will have to search premises for evidence that offences have been committed.

Mr. Bercow: Given that there is some lingering uncertainty as to whether the Bill in all its aspects is compatible with the European convention on human rights, would not Ministers do us a signal service were they to publish the legal advice that they received on that point from our old friends the Government lawyers?

Mr. Page: The Minister has no doubt heard my hon. Friend's request. It would be helpful if he would consider such a kind gesture to my hon. Friend. That would also be a service to the rest of the House.
I do not apologise for making detailed points because, although we are in favour of the Bill in principle, it is necessary to make sure that the matters of concern that I have raised are satisfactorily answered and given a clear bill of health. My final detailed point arises from clause 12.
It is clear that the Bill, if enacted, will apply throughout the United Kingdom, and if Her Majesty grants an Order in Council, to the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. I am intrigued to see that it may be applied to "any colony." What explanation can the Minister offer the House for that provision? Is the development of nuclear power programmes on St. Helena or the Falkland islands imminent? I should have thought not, but this may be one of the few occasions on which the Government are thinking ahead.
I hope that the Minister can provide answers to the questions that have been put to him not only by me, but by my hon. Friends in their contributions. I hope that we can then make sure that the Bill gets a quick passage on to the statute book, showing that we are fully behind its aims and objectives.

Mr. Tony Colman: I support the Bill, which ratifies the additional protocol to the safeguards mandated in article 3 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, with wider provisions covering undeclared facilities and more effective inspections. It is substantially the private Member's Bill that I introduced—Bill No. 23 of the 1998–99 Session. I am delighted that the Government have found time to take the matter forward.
I am also delighted to pay tribute to a predecessor of mine as the Member of Parliament for Putney, the noble Lord Jenkins, who is 92 years old and still speaking

strongly in the other place on the cause of nuclear disarmament. He will be pleased that the Bill, although small in its way, is the way forward.
I should also point out that I succeeded as Labour candidate for Putney the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said, will be representing the Government at the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on 24 April. I am very pleased that, as the current Member of Parliament for Putney, I am able to follow in the tradition of those two very great men.
I should thank all those who helped me last year in pursuing my private Member's Bill, particularly Dr. Stephen Pullinger of the Institute for Science and International Security and Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym institute. I also thank the staff at the British embassy in Vienna and of the International Atomic Energy Agency for all their help, which enabled me fully to understand the workings of the IAEA and the need for the protocol. I also thank all-party groups that helped me to pursue the cause of ratification in Hong Kong, with the People's Republic of China, and in South Korea, in discussion with North Korea. I am grateful for the Korean ambassador's continuing support for the additional protocol.

Mr. Gibb: This is all very interesting, but why was there no requirement in clause 4 of the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill for Department of Trade and Industry inspectors—let alone international inspectors—to seek a search warrant from a justice of the peace?

Mr. Colman: I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister answering that question in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Colman: No, I should like to proceed with my speech.
In thanking the all-party British-American parliamentary group, I particularly draw attention to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am also grateful for the widespread support of the United States Administration—in both the House of Representatives and the Senate—for the additional protocol.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Am I right in thinking that he has just enunciated a novel notion of parliamentary responsibility? He said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that it is the responsibility of the Minister to explain the lacuna in a Back-Bench Bill.

Mr. Colman: As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, this Bill is substantially similar to my private Member's Bill, but its provisions are now those of a Government Bill, and I therefore look forward to the Minister dealing with it.
I am pleased that the United Kingdom is the first nuclear power to proceed with ratification of the additional protocol. I originally chose to promote my Bill


because I was concerned that, when United Nations inspectors were ordered out of Iraq in December 1998, there appeared to be no basis for a wider approach to enable all countries across the world to proceed with establishing a standard inspection regime. I was obviously very pleased, therefore, to discover that the additional protocol had been signed on 22 September and that we were able to take matters forward. The additional protocol cannot be imposed on Iraq because of sanctions dating from the end of the Iraq war in 1991. I call on Iraq to demonstrate its openness and to sign and ratify the protocol. As has been said, there is also need for Cuba, Israel, India and Pakistan to do so.

Mr. Wilshire: I understand why the hon. Gentleman calls on Iraq to sign up to the additional protocol, but does he have any reason to believe that, were it to do so, it would be any more likely to stick to it, given that it was a signatory to the safeguard agreement in the first place?

Mr. Colman: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the safeguard agreement that Iraq signed did not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency the right to search, as the Bill does. The reason for the additional protocol is to deal with Iraq's duplicity. When it was developing nuclear weapons, it stated that it was not doing that.

Mr. David Heath: Would the hon. Gentleman have confidence that, if Iraq signed the additional protocol, the system would work if any search by the international body required an affidavit from the equivalent of a justice of the peace in Baghdad? Some hon. Members seem to proposing that.

Mr. Colman: I agree. When some hon. Members intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister, I sometimes wondered whether they were speaking for Saddam Hussein. However, I am sure that they were not.
I draw the attention of the House to the excellent work of the current inquiry of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs into weapons of mass destruction. I shall mention two of the people who have given evidence to the inquiry and who have supported my work in the past year. Professor John Simpson of the Mountbatten centre for international studies pointed out in his evidence that many new states are acceding to the non-proliferation treaty, and that it has widened. There is now the treaty of Rarotonga, which covers the south Pacific, the treaty of Bangkok, which covers south-east Asia and the treaty of Pelindaba, which covers Africa. Those treaties cover nuclear weapons-free zones, and involve more than 100 states.
Until all states have ratified the additional protocol, we cannot move to a new system of integrated safeguards. That makes it imperative that we, as one of the nuclear powers, take the lead on the matter.
Rebecca Johnson, who is executive director of the Acronym institute, stated in her evidence:
So far, the rate of signature and ratification of the Additional Protocols has been abysmal. For Britain to have ratified before the 2000 NPT conference would be an important signal of its commitment to strengthening the safeguards regime and improving the IAEA powers for monitoring and inspecting nuclear capable states.

It has already been said that approximately 48 countries have now signed, including the main nuclear powers: the United Kingdom, the United States, the People's Republic of China, France and, on 22 March this year, Russia. So far, only eight countries have ratified. It is a pity that Euratom has not moved forward on the matter.
Earlier, the Minister and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Member.

Mr. Colman: I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety that the Bill might contravene the European convention on human rights. That matter was fully discussed in another place and on Third Reading. Those debates are worth reading. The matter can be taken further in Committee.
I am worried that a more lenient regime might be established in this country, whereby warrants would have to be issued before inspection could take place. Such a regime would be used as a coach and horses, and would ensure that rogue states such as Iraq would continue to be able to hide the evidence. It would nullify the need and effectiveness of the additional protocol.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman's point is one of the fundamental problems that worries my hon. Friends and me. The other place states that the Bill will not contravene the European convention on human rights. Nevertheless, the courts could decide that the Bill constituted an infringement. If that happened, we could be in difficulties.

Mr. Colman: We could have experienced the same problem with our land mines and chemical weapons Acts. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should not enter into any international treaty obligations. It is important to lead the way and not to have a less stringent inspection regime in this country for land mines, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons than elsewhere.

Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and I am grateful to him for promoting me, but I am a humble hon. Member. We obviously do not want difficulties. We want things to go smoothly and sweetly and we must have as much information as possible to ensure that the proposal will not be challenged in the courts. I say that the IAEA must be able to take up those powers without infringement; he says, "It's going to be all right and we have them for the land mines and chemical treaties"—but that does not definitively answer what could be a difficult problem.

Mr. Colman: I am suggesting not that the proposal is the definitive answer, but that the matter has been examined again and again by the House in relation to similar treaty obligations. I am sure that it will be fully explored again in Committee. We must not give a signal, particularly ahead of the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on 26 April, that we are against an inspection regime in this country that we would wish on other countries.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who recently set up the all-party group on global security and


non-proliferation. I was pleased that not only Michael Douglas, but prominent Ministers and shadow Ministers from both sides of the House attended a recent meeting, because dealing with weapons of mass destruction has been too far down the House's agenda for far too long.
I have an important final point to make. In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development brought together representatives of developing countries, many of whom were benefiting or were to benefit from the debt relief provisions for which Jubilee 2000 has fought for a long time. The meeting examined their armaments budgets and considered whether they wanted to think again about the amount that they were spending. That is a legitimate way forward. The money forgone for debt relief will be diverted to poverty alleviation and we must consider whether more can be done to persuade countries to move on armaments purchases as well.
As the non-proliferation treaty review approaches, we must consider the fact that expenditure on weapons of mass destruction is largely made by developed countries in the G8 and, as Jubilee 2000 comes to its triumphant conclusion, whether we should establish a Jubilee 2002. We must bring to the top of the agenda the aim of all parties throughout the world moving forward on multilateral disarmament by dealing with weapons of mass destruction. I want the United Kingdom to take the lead and the Bill is a small step in that direction. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Keetch: As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, no more important matter could be brought before the House than attempts to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, especially, of nuclear weapons. I endorse his comments about the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). I am pleased to see him in the Chamber as he has done a great deal of work not only through the all-party group, but by initiating a recent Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is surely the most important international issue facing the countries of the world and, briefly, I want to add the support of Liberal Democrat Members to the Government's efforts. Many Conservative Members want to speak and I shall not detain the House for long, but I share some of their concerns about the Bill starting life as a private Member's Bill. It should have been a Government Bill from the beginning as it clearly represents a matter of great importance.
Proliferation has been accelerated and exaggerated since the end of the cold war. Indeed, I am off to Russia tomorrow for talks with people from the Ministry of Defence about their problems. It seems clear to us that this country has a duty to impose on itself the most stringent, the most rigorous and the most transparent regime of all to ensure that we can safeguard and monitor our nuclear industry.
I believe that we have an almost unique role to play in leading the calls for multinational disarmament. This country is a leading member of the European Union, a permanent member of the Security Council and a member of the Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is not in his place, but I would say to

him that this country should take a lead by fulfilling our obligations because we are a key member of all those international bodies. We should do so for that reason alone.
This country has a unique position given our special relationship with the United States and our long history of developing and deploying nuclear weapons in the field. It is important that we should take the lead, and I am glad that the Government are now doing so, albeit late in the day. I definitely welcome that.
Reference has been made to the debate in the House of Lords. I commend the words of my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He made an excellent contribution and questioned Ministers in the other place on a number of points.
I want to ask the Minister four specific questions that I hope he will answer in his winding-up speech. Given what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, will the Minister tell us why the Bill is being applied to the colonies? Does he include Gibraltar in the list? If the Bill is to be extended to the Channel islands, will he ensure that arms brokers and arms companies that place information on the internet from the colonies are also to be subject to this legislation?
What about the role of justices of the peace? It seems to us that the Bill places an important burden on them. Will they be given additional technical support and information so that they can make a proper judgment on whether to grant permission for searches to take place?
Reference has also been made to the position of the United States. Given our special relationship and the concern of hon. Members and many people in the country about the failure of the United States to ratify this and other treaties, and the suggestion that the United States will seek British participation in its national missile defence programme, will the Minister ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence raises the issue of US non-ratification with his American counterparts in any discussions he may have on the NMD programme?
What remedy does the Minister intend British citizens who are searched and have nothing on them should have? Should they have a remedy against the International Atomic Energy Agency, or against the police officers who support a search that reveals nothing?

Mr. David Heath: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. The position of the IAEA is analogous to that of Europol, which has rights in this country and has immunity. The answer given by a Minister with regard to Europol was that it would be the constabulary involved against whom any civil action would be taken by an individual or company affected. As this international body also has immunity, is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the same would apply in this instance?

Mr. Keetch: Yes, it is my understanding that the remedy would be directed against the police officer who supported any search. It is important to make that point, especially as reference has already been made to nations whose Governments have attempted to prevent international monitoring.
This country has a proud record of taking a lead on attempts by all countries to control the proliferation and establish verification of nuclear weapons systems. The Bill is an important part of that, and it is unfortunate that


Members from all parties in the House are not more inclined to listen to the debate. I hope that it will receive support. It will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and I look forward to considering the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Eric Forth: One of the problems with this procedure is that it always has the taste of a fait accompli. On the face of it, the House of Commons is debating a substantial matter and an important Bill concerning some important international treaties and obligations. However, the puzzlement is that the explanatory notes say:
It was agreed by the Council of Ministers on 8 June 1998 and approved by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 11 June. The Additional Protocol was signed in Vienna on 22 September 1998.
if it was agreed by the Council of Ministers, it is surely self-evident that a Minister representing the United Kingdom would have been present, and would have given his or her consent.
That raises the question: what is the real meaning of this parliamentary procedure? On the face of it, the answer is that we need a Bill to give effect to what the Minister said on our behalf; but is anyone seriously suggesting that if by some chance the Bill did not receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament, the Minister's signature would somehow be invalidated? What needs to be clarified—a Select Committee is considering it—is whether the Government feel that the parliamentary process that we are undertaking can have any real meaning, or whether we are expected to be some sort of rubber stamp. For instance, if we sought to amend the substance of the Bill giving effect to the protocol, would that in any way invalidate the Minister's signature, given in the Council of Ministers? That strikes me as a relevant question.
The first question, in an overall sense, is this: what is the status of our current proceedings? That is to say nothing of the Committee and Report stages, which will give the House an opportunity to examine in much more detail clauses that have already been touched on and to which I hope to return later.
Then there is the mystery of the private Member's Bill. I remember distinctly, because I was aware of its passage at the time, that the hon. Member concerned gave the impression that it was his Bill and his alone, and had nothing to do with the Government. I had my doubts at the time, and they have simply been confirmed by our proceedings.
It would appear—this is the evidence; I wait for a Minister to deny it—that the Government sought to smuggle their provisions through the parliamentary process using the vehicle of a private Member's Bill, and when that failed owing to the remarkable diligence of a certain right hon. Member, were forced to do what they should have done from the start, and give the provisions proper parliamentary time in the legislative timetable. That is what they should have done, if they thought that their proposals were sufficiently important. That, I think, explains the apparently inexplicable delay between the Government's signature in September 1998 and the Bill's being subjected to a proper parliamentary process in both Houses in 2000.

Mr. Maclean: It would be fair of my right hon. Friend to point out not just that the Government attempted to

smuggle the legislation through as a private Member's Bill, but that they attempted to do so by tacking it on to the end of the Order Paper on a Friday. In those circumstances, it would have had to be bounced through with no Second Reading and no Committee stage. It would have completed all its stages instantly—a process that Madam Speaker thoroughly deplores. I am sure that you do as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend would agree that, even at this early stage, enough questions have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), and in interventions, to suggest that the matter is not uncontroversial. Apparently, it is already highly controversial, and I hope to show that it involves several areas of controversy that will have to be resolved during the parliamentary process.

Mr. Bercow: It is bad enough that Ministers should browbeat a hapless Back Bencher into presenting a private Member's Bill that was not of his original choosing, but have they not compounded the error by failing at least adequately to brief the Member in question on why the Bill contained what it did contain, and did not contain what it did not contain?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the Bill's history; perhaps we could now deal with its content.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The protocol is at the heart of the matter. I want to spend some time on it, particularly its preamble, which mentions the awareness
of the desire of the international community—
whatever that is, for I have never fully understood what it is; the phrase has slipped into parlance, but has no meaning, as far as I am aware—
to further enhance—
a split infinitive appears even in the preamble of an allegedly important document—
nuclear non-proliferation by strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the Agency's safeguards system.
That is the rather high-blown, if ungrammatical, intention. It causes me some concern. In both domestic legislation and international treaties, there is a burgeoning of such flowery language, which may reassure some people, but does little to add any substance to what we are discussing.
I invoke briefly a speech by a gentleman called Mr. Michael Douglas, who recently appeared in the Palace of Westminster at a meeting attended by many senior and well-meaning colleagues. He glories in the title of United Nations messenger on something or other. He was here to discuss the very matter that is the substance of the protocol and the Bill. I quote a brief paragraph of his words because they are apposite:
Right now, as we sit here in Westminster in March of the millennium year, the United States and Russia are in stalemate. The prospective adoption by the United States of a "Star Wars" missile defence system has already led Russia, China and other nations to declare that this would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and lead to a more confrontational military posture between the US and Russia, and the US and China.
He continued:
These three treaties—the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty—underpin the current arms control regime. They are in danger of coming apart at a time when more material for making weapons of mass destruction is available worldwide than ever before.
There is still the possibility for these three treaties to be saved, and for a return to progress on multi-lateral nuclear disarmament. But it will require leadership. Britain is uniquely placed to assume this leadership role: strong influence is required in Washington, and as a result of the special relationship between our two countries, the influence of the British is particularly strong.
That is, we can assume, the view from the UN, carried to us here via the rather unlikely person of Mr. Michael Douglas, but I am sure that he was very welcome.
It gives rise to some important questions, not the least of which is: if the recent stories that the UK wishes to join the United States to extend a new anti-ballistic missile arrangement not only to North America, but to western Europe are true, that in itself will raise questions with regard to the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government on the protocol and the Bill. If Mr. Douglas is correct and if I interpret his remarks correctly, the UK Government, in wishing to go ahead and to move forward with an anti-ballistic missile arrangement, are totally at odds with the ethos, if not the terms, of the protocol and the Bill, so the Government need to come clean as to where they stand on that important issue.

Mr. Keetch: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what his position is and—perhaps it would be more enlightening—what the position of his Front-Bench team is on British participation in national missile defence? We have made our position clear. The Government, as he knows, have not yet made their position clear. I would be delighted and interested to know what his position is.

Mr. Forth: I would not dream of speaking on behalf of my Front-Bench team on that or any other matter, but I am pleased to give my view. I am very keen that we co-operate with our American friends on any measure that will give our citizenry protection against rogue attack from powers throughout the world. I happily take that position. It is part of the reason why I have doubts about the thrust and substance of the Bill and the protocol: can one sign up to the motherhood views and aspirations of such a protocol and Bill, yet go ahead with the real nitty-gritty—the defence imperative of an effective anti-missile defence system?

Mr. Maclean: Is not the situation worse than that? Although the Government have been saying that Britain must give a lead by signing the protocol and showing that we are willing to have International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visit "any" of our nuclear establishments, they do not mean "any" of our nuclear establishments. In the other place, Lord McIntosh of Haringey made it clear that the protocol's additional obligations cover only civil facilities and do not extend to our defence-related facilities. If we in Great Britain are not willing to let IAEA inspectors into our military nuclear establishments, is there any hope of any other countries in the world—particularly the rogue states—agreeing to such a drastic step?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has, as ever, anticipated the direction of my remarks; I wanted to deal

that point now. What worries me about what I would characterise as gesture legislation, or even as gesture protocol, is precisely that point.
The Minister was at pains to tell us, with some pride, that many countries—I think he said that there have been 48 approvals—have already signed and ratified the additional protocol. I have the Library's analysis of the matter. The ever excellent work of the Library shows that there have been 46 approvals, but the Minister told us that two countries have subsequently approved it. The number looks impressive, until one looks at the list's contents. If I were told that Armenia, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Ecuador and Ghana have signed the protocol, I would not be particularly impressed. I would be even less impressed if I were told that the Holy See has signed it—to say nothing of Jordan, Monaco, Peru and Portugal.

Dr. Howells: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall give way to the Minister in a moment.
I have named only a few countries. However, the worrying aspect of this type of exercise is that one is left wondering whether it is only a feel-good exercise for those who strut on the international stage, make self-important speeches, congratulate one another on the progress made, sign protocols and international agreements and make the sort of speeches that we have already heard today. In fact, we are given a list showing that Monaco and the Holy See have signed up to a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As far as I know, countries such as Libya, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have not signed it.
Are we really saying to ourselves and to the world that we are doing something productive and useful that carries us forward? I think not. I suspect that such exercises are very much a combination of factors, including the ego massage of those who attend the conferences. We have been told that one of our Ministers—the Minister for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, if I am not mistaken—will be rushing off to the conference on the protocol. [Interruption.] I realise that the conference will be attended not by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, but by the Minister who represents another part of the Principality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Neath."] Indeed, Neath. I was going to spare him the embarrassment, but my hon. Friends have let the cat out of the bag. We have been told that he will go to yet another conference to strut a similar stage and make a similar speech.
It is quite sinister that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, almost casually, in letting the cat out of the bag, told us that he expects the Bill to complete its parliamentary stages by Easter. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you can confirm that a proper regard for the procedures of the House and of parliamentary process make that extremely unlikely, to say the least.
Even supposing that the Bill were to receive a Second Reading today—about which I should have very grave reservations—that the Committee of Selection were to meet this Wednesday and rather peremptorily select the Standing Committee members, and that that Committee were to meet at the earliest possible time, which I think would be next Tuesday—does the Minister seriously suggest the Government would have the gall and arrogance to seek to ram through parliamentary procedure


a Bill as important and controversial as this in the two parliamentary days remaining between completion of the Committee's consideration—were it to sit only once, which I think unlikely, given the reservations already expressed—and the House rising for Easter?
I hope that the Minister made an error or slip of the tongue, and misunderstood what he was saying so he could not possibly be suggesting that the Government would have the gall, even before the Bill has received a Second Reading, to consider telescoping parliamentary process to that extent. I hope that he will confirm that.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting—for the avoidance of any doubt—that the Minister's preference was to ensure that consideration of the Bill in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading is completed on Tuesday 18 April? What a monstrous suggestion.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to put words into the Minister's mouth. I am saying—

Dr. Howells: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: We shall have an explanation. Of course I shall give way.

Dr. Howells: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give way about five minutes ago. He told me that he would, but he has taken a bit of time in doing so. I am afraid that the verb that is being used is wrong. The fact is that I had hoped—not preferred—that we would be able to make progress on the legislation. Clearly, that hope was a forlorn one.

Mr. Forth: I acknowledge immediately that the Minister's courtesy is an exception to Ministers' usual arrogance to the House. He does us the courtesy of giving way frequently in speeches and of doing his best to answer questions. Typically, he has now shown the proper respect for parliamentary process that is shared by all too few of his colleagues. I am grateful for his comments, which make me feel easier about how the Bill may proceed, were it to be given a Second Reading later today.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I am making only my preliminary remarks, but I should like to deal with the protocol and then the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will not detain me too long.

Mr. Wilshire: No; I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not allow that. My right hon. Friend comments on the Minister's kindness and generosity, but would he not be even more impressed if the Minister not only showed us the courtesies that he has listed, but accepted our arguments?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is pushing his luck a little too far. Let us take it one stage at a time and see whether, on Second Reading, we can tease out some of the problems in the Bill, receive from the Government an acknowledgement of them, and then perhaps get a sense

of the possible shape of the Committee's deliberations. I have not even mentioned consideration on Report, when there will have to be further deliberation. That is probably as much as we can expect in this debate.
I think that, in a parliamentary sense, it is proper that the debate on Second Reading should enable us to map out the Bill's broad shape and the type of anxieties that hon. Members express. Such a process will provide some clues, and it might even help the Government in timetabling the legislation. It might also help the Government not to send off the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office with too high an expectation—so that he is not too disappointed when he goes to mix with his very important colleagues, on a very important international stage, to make very important speeches to one another—of being able to go with this Bill tucked in his back pocket.

Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Does it not underline his earlier comments—exempting from criticisms the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who used to pull with me on the tug-of-war team, although he now has a rather weak back—on the Government's attempt in the previous Session to push through very quickly, with the minimum of attention, the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that point has already been more than well made.

Mr. Forth: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am grateful for its endorsement by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
I shall not allow my hon. Friends to prevent me from dealing now with the thrust of my argument. I really should like to deal with the protocol, which is what the Bill is all about. The more that I read the protocol, however, the more it worries me. Therefore, it will take me a little time to go through some of my worries.
I start with article 2, under the general heading of "Provision of Information". It states:
The United Kingdom shall provide the Agency with a declaration containing the information identified in sub-paragraphs (i) … below.
Sub-paragraph (i) goes on to talk about
A general description of and information specifying the location of those nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development activities carried out anywhere that are funded, specifically authorised or controlled by, or carried out on behalf of, the United Kingdom.
Even in the early stages of the protocol, we begin to see the extent of the legislative commitments that we may have to make to fulfil its requirements. My suspicion is that lurking behind those bland words is the possibility that a lot of our institutions could become subject to some difficult arrangements. For example,
nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development activities
could refer to our universities. We should ask whether we are comfortable with our great seats of learning, with their proud tradition of academic freedom and freedom from Government intervention, being the subject of potential intervention not just, as we shall see later when we look at the Bill in detail, from domestic agencies, protected by warrants and by justices of the peace, but from the rather odd international agency, manned inevitably by foreign


nationals. The Minister seemed a bit afraid of that word earlier, but we shall hear a lot of it as the debate unfolds. Our universities in particular may well be subject to intrusion by an agency that is unaccountable in any sense to any organ of government or representation in this country. So article 2.a(i) already thoroughly arouses my suspicions.
We asked the Minister earlier whether any institutions, bodies, companies or businesses had expressed any unhappiness about the provisions. I am surprised that our universities have not expressed some disquiet about the fact that their jealously guarded academic freedom and independence and their research and development work may well be subject to intrusion and invasion by an unaccountable and unelected body that is not even subject to proper judicial process through a warrant given by justices of the peace.

Mr. Bercow: Is not the explanation for that blindingly obvious? Most of the seats of learning in this country are supremely unaware of the existence of the Bill, let alone of its potential application to them.

Mr. Forth: That is one explanation. Another might be that the universities are full of lefties and CND supporters. There could be any number of possible reasons. Perhaps it would be incautious of me to go into them in too much detail at this stage. I am merely flagging up the anxieties that it would be right for us to acknowledge about the protocol to which the Bill gives effect.

Mr. Fabricant: I wanted to intervene on my right hon. Friend before he left the subject of our academic institutions. Does he recall that the Minister admitted that there may be same-sex examination? What would he think if his daughter was being investigated or examined by a male examiner from abroad, probing—I do not know why the Minister laughs—every orifice?

Mr. Forth: I shall come to the sexual aspects of the Bill in due course, although not quite in the terms that my hon. Friend has asked. I certainly want to keep my daughter—or daughters, as it is—out of this altogether. I have highlighted some of the issues in my research and I shall deal with some of the implications of the provisions of clause 4(7), to which my hon. Friend referred, because they raise some important practical questions, not least on the difference of approach between clauses 4 and 5. We have not got anywhere near the Bill yet—I am still on the early stages of the protocol. I hope that he will forgive me if I try to keep my remarks in reasonable order, so that hon. Members can appreciate the development of my logic.
Having skirted briefly over article 2 of the protocol, I turn to article 4, which has the bland heading "Complementary Access". It also gives early hints of the extent of the powers that the protocol might lead us to have to give in the Bill. It again refers to the mysterious, shadowy international agency, whose composition we shall have to return to shortly, because it raises a lot of questions. The article says:
The Agency shall not mechanistically or systematically seek to verify the information referred to in article 2—
which I have touched on briefly—
however, the Agency shall have access to—

the article then gives a list, including
Any location referred to in Article 5.c.
Here again, the scope of the protocol is broadened, which inevitably drives the provisions of the Bill—because the two are inextricably linked—to any location. That is far too all-encompassing and comprehensive to give our citizenry any relief.
I move rapidly on to article 5, which says that the United Kingdom shall provide the Agency with access to:
Any location specified by the Agency, other than locations referred to in paragraphs a. and b. above, to carry out location-specific environmental sampling
and so on. It then says
the United Kingdom shall make every reasonable effort to satisfy Agency requirements, without delay, at adjacent locations or through other means.
We have become distressingly used to such wording in domestic legislation. The protocol contains comprehensive and all-embracing provisions, talking about "any location", satisfying agency requirements "without delay", which is gratuitous and a bit insulting, and
adjacent locations or through other means.
It is one thing to make provision for access to specific locations. The earlier parts of the protocol lull us into a false sense of security that it is reassuringly specific, but it is nothing of the kind. I would not accuse any hon. Member, least of all those present, of having made only a superficial examination of anything, but even my superficial examination of article 5 has flushed out the fact that we are talking about adjacent locations. That makes it possible to extend the scope of the activities of the shadowy and rather sinister agency not just to the locations specified, but to adjacent locations—that gives very wide scope—"or through other means". That is our old friend the blanket provision, which would allow the agency to go almost anywhere and to do almost anything. That is the protocol to which we are being asked to give effect.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the protocol covers academic institutions. Has he had a chance to estimate the disincentive for institutions such as Microsoft to invest in science parks adjacent to institutions such as Cambridge university, which has nuclear research facilities?

Mr. Forth: I do not want to explore that in too much detail at this stage, because my hon. Friend is inviting me to speculate on whether there is a difference in approach between, on the one hand, universities, other academic institutions and research and development facilities and commercial businesses such as Microsoft, which will carry out research and development that may have a bearing on nuclear facilities and could well be adjacent in location, and, on the other hand, more specifically nuclear facilities, which can be identified more readily. I shall not explore that at this stage. I suspect that some of my hon. Friends may want to pick up on that point later. I do not want to detain the House for too long.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Well, yes, but I am trying to make progress.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is making splendid progress. However, is not the use of this rather worrying and vague term "by other means" indicative of a tendency, certainly in the context of the protocol and the Bill, to abandon the traditional British legislator's insistence upon specificity in favour of high-falutin' continental declarations of good intent? If this is to be an all-embracing power, is it not doubly important that aggrieved parties should have proper recourse to the law if they feel that the powers contained in the Bill and the protocol have been improperly applied?

Mr. Forth: I would have thought that that is self-evident, and obviously my hon. Friend does. However, that does not seem to have occurred to the Government. It is something that we want to explore when we come to examine the Bill in detail, as I hope that we shall do fairly shortly. We want to explore the differences between the relevant clauses. I am trying to get through the protocol as quickly as possible while doing it justice, and I want to move on.
I may surprise the House, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to identify what I think is a weakness in the provisions of the protocol that might undermine the effectiveness of its aims. I hope that this approach will show my even-handedness. I have been rather sceptical and negative about the protocol, and that reflects my general demeanour. I wish to examine some rather worrying provisions.
If the protocol and the inspection process are to be effective, it is essential that there should be the element of surprise. That being so, I was surprised when I read the detail of article 4b(i) and (ii) and then c and e. Article 4b(i) states that the agency
shall give the United Kingdom … advance notice of access of at least 24 hours.
Sub-paragraph (ii) adds that there can be a period of
at least two hours but, in exceptional circumstances, it may be less than two hours.
Paragraph c provides:
Advance notice shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons for access and the activities to be carried out during such access.
Astonishingly, paragraph e states:
Unless otherwise agreed to by the United Kingdom, access shall only take place during regular working hours.
If we are to have effective inspection within a highly sensitive area, it is astonishing that the inspectors should be trammelled and hemmed in by these provisions of notice. Whether we are talking about domestic school inspections or health and safety inspections, surely their effectiveness must be diminished by the extent to which advance notice must be given. If we are saying that the inspector has to say in writing, "Excuse me chaps, but we are coming to see you in a few days' time and we hope to root out all your nuclear secrets and find out how it is that you are making bombs without telling anyone," that is surely an ineffective approach.

Dr. Julian Lewis: (New Forest, East): Does my right hon. Friend's memory take him back to previous arms control treaties? There was once something called the seabed treaty, which provided that it was all right to have nuclear submarines patrolling the depths but not to install nuclear weapons on the seabed. Was not that truly likened

to an agreement not to screw aircraft to the ground? In that sense, is not the Bill part of a long and honourable tradition?

Mr. Forth: That may be. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will seek to catch your eye later. His knowledge of these matters is infinitely greater than mine will ever be, and I defer to him. He has illustrated what often underlies these measures: they are high on intent and aspiration and regrettably low on substance and effectiveness. My example seems to suggest that that is the position. Either we are serious about these matters or we are not.
Given all the high-flown words of Ministers, their attendance at conferences, their signing of documents and the issuing of protocols, where is the beef? The astonishing requirements of advance notice do not add anything to the effectiveness of the proposed measures. Almost certainly they detract from it.
I move on rapidly to article 4f, which states:
The United Kingdom, or for access under article 5.a. or otherwise involving nuclear material, the United Kingdom and the Community, shall have the right to have Agency inspectors accompanied during their access by representatives of the United Kingdom.
There is some reassurance for those of us who are worried about foreign nationals tramping round the United Kingdom and invading private premises and people's inherent and well-founded rights. There is some comfort that the inspectors will be accompanied by representatives of the United Kingdom, and as appropriate by Community inspectors,
provided that Agency inspectors shall not thereby be delayed or otherwise impeded in the exercise of their functions.
Having given us an apparent assurance, that is almost immediately undermined by the document stating, as I read it and unless the Minister tells me otherwise, that it will be at the discretion of agency inspectors to determine whether they feel that they have been delayed or impeded. If they can argue that they will be delayed or impeded if they have to wait to be accompanied by representatives of the United Kingdom, they can exercise the enormous powers that are provided by the Bill without any such accompaniment. There is an attempt to give an assurance that Members might reasonably expect, but almost immediately that is taken away. That is characteristic of the protocol throughout in that it seeks to face both ways.
Article 7 deals with the important matter of sensitive information. It provides:
Upon request by the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom and the Agency shall make arrangements for managed access under this Protocol to prevent the dissemination—
I think that there is a misprint—
of proliferation sensitive information … to protect proprietary or commercially sensitive information.
It will help us in Committee and on Report if the Minister will explain how the Government envisage these important arrangements being made and being made effective. That will require an institutional arrangement and protocols within the protocol or within the terms of the Bill to try to ensure that concern about sensitive information is properly met. How will that be done?
The article adds that the arrangements about protecting sensitivity
shall not preclude the Agency from conducting activities necessary to resolve a question relating to the correctness and completeness of the information.
It appears that the agency always has a let out. Having been given an assurance about sensitivity or whatever, we are told almost immediately that if the agency sees things differently, it will always have the last word. Our citizenry and those running our academic and business institutions can well be uneasy about that.
I move on to article 11. The House will see that I am picking up pace as I go along.

Dr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I will, but I am getting quite close to the end of my examination of the protocol. I am anxious to have a brief discussion about human rights, and then I will start considering the Bill.

Dr. Lewis: I eagerly anticipate the later stages of my right hon. Friend's disquisition.
While accepting my right hon. Friend's concerns about the academic freedoms of our universities being impinged upon, does he recognise that there might be a problem in dealing with non-democracies which sign the protocol? Is there not a danger that they would set up bogus educational institutions as covers to manufacture weapons of mass destruction that would be secure from inspection? Is that why the Government feel that they must go as far as they are, despite my right hon. Friend's concerns?

Mr. Forth: I will not attempt to cover that point. I know that many of my colleagues, especially my hon. Friend, are much more qualified to deal with it than I am, and I hope that they will expand upon it. Suffice to say that I share that anxiety.
There is an inherent paradox in the whole process, because the member states which take a pride in their democratic accountability and their international responsibilities will sign up to such treaties. They regularly rub shoulders, and congratulate each other on what responsible world citizens they are. The regrettable paradox is that the very states that ignore the international treaties and do not sign up to them are the ones that are most likely to be a global threat. I shall not explore that matter further now, because I prefer to stick to the minutiae and leave the global vision to those of my colleagues who are much better qualified to address it.
Articles 11 and 12 are interlinked. Article 11 states:
Unless the Community or the United Kingdom advises the Director General of the rejection of such an official as an inspector for the United Kingdom within three months of … the Board's approval, the inspector so notified … shall be considered designated.
That is a long-winded way of saying—at least, I hope so—that the United Kingdom would have a veto on inspectors. That is an important point and I want the Minister to answer it specifically when he winds up. Is my reading of article 11 correct and will the UK have a veto over the appointment of inspectors? If the answer is yes, I will be somewhat

reassured. If it is no, for any reason, I will be very worried that any old foreign national could come in to this country and exercise the extraordinary powers in the Bill.

Dr. Howells: I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the answer is yes, we have a veto.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that courteous and prompt reply to my question. Article 12 contains an important point about visas. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends present have far greater knowledge on that subject than I do and I shall, therefore, tread only delicately on that ground in the hope that the issue will be covered later in the debate. Suffice it to say that, on the face of it—this is another question for the Minister—it looks as if the normal sovereign power of this country to grant or withhold visas to foreign nationals who wish to come to the United Kingdom will be completely nullified and overridden by this extraordinary provision in article 12.
Article 12 states—I can scarce believe it—
The United Kingdom shall … provide the designated inspector specified—
one who has survived our veto—
with appropriate multiple entry/exit and/or transit visas, where required, to enable the inspector to enter and remain on the territory of the United Kingdom.
It continues:
Any visas … shall be valid for at least one year and shall be renewed, as required.
That may be completely at odds with many of our domestic statutory provisions and with the powers that I thought that this country had retained for itself as sovereign, even within the European Union. Were we to give effect to article 12, we might give up our power to control the entry of foreign nationals to this country. If that is the case, that is extraordinarily worrying.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend considered the implications of such visas being made available for a period of as long as a year at a time? Even if nothing untoward were done in the course of the inspection visits themselves, undesirable people such as senior intelligence officers would have the facility to come and go at other times apart from when they were doing their job and inspecting the nuclear facilities.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's point reinforces the point that I have just made. The article does not require that the visits by inspectors should be specific to their duties or responsibilities. Instead, it gives those foreign nationals complete freedom to move in and out of the United Kingdom for any unrelated purpose.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the uncertain extent to which this country retains a veto over international persons coming here to undertake their responsibilities, we should not derive undue comfort from the veto? What matters, as Hayek long ago taught us, is not who the men are but what the measures are. Is it not essential that we should keep clearly in view the fact of those substantial powers and the need for adequate safeguards against their abuse, whoever the individuals exercising them?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right, as ever, and safeguards are there none. My amendment mentions the


Human Rights Act 1998, and I am not remotely satisfied by the Minister's statement—one could hardly call it an explanation—that the Government are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are in accord with the Act and, therefore, the European convention on human rights. The first article of the convention covers the protection of property and states:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
It continues:
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest.
That is fair enough, and I would argue even before the Minister—although I do not see any signs of him wishing to intervene—that clause 4 probably accords with the spirit of the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. It gives the reassurance that powers of entry will be given to an authorised officer or constable, that a warrant must be issued by a justice of the peace and that the Secretary of State must be involved.
The worry arises from clause 5, which would allow foreign nationals absolute rights of access to people's property in the United Kingdom. That must be against the spirit and the letter of the convention and the Act because there is no mechanism of accountability within a democratic framework, such as that in which the convention was cast in the late 1940s and has been carried forward ever since. The difference in substance between the approaches in clause 4 and in clause 5 mean that it is perilously close to a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998—as I contend in my amendment. I hope that we will hear more on that point.

Mr. Maclean: I thought that one of the precepts of the Human Rights Act 1998 was that no individual should be deprived of his property or have his rights interfered with without due process of law. The whole point about clause 5 is that it will allow inspectors access to individuals' property without any due process of law.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, and that may be a matter to which we shall return in Committee and on Report. It is our duty as representatives of our citizenry to try to ensure that we give them the maximum reassurance that we can in terms of the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend but I do not wish to be delayed too much. I am now coming to the Bill itself, and that will be very exciting.

Mr. Bercow: I am waiting for that with bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow. However, has my right hon. Friend noticed clause 5(6) which refers to a possible dispute and proceedings that might take place about whether someone purporting to be an agency inspector is actually an inspector? Apart from that opaque reference, no reference is made to possible proceedings and the legal entitlements of aggrieved parties to pursue proceedings against agency inspectors.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, but my hon. Friend is slightly anticipating me on the matter of the mysterious certificate.
I shall talk about that later, although it is unclear what reassurance it gives. However, I want to go through the Bill reasonably in order.
I have little to say about clause 1, but clause 2 presents a potential problem. It states:
No obligation as to secrecy or other restriction on disclosure … prevents a person voluntarily giving information to the Secretary of State if that person has reason to believe that it is Additional Protocol information.
However, the ellipsis in Hansardwill show where I omitted the following words
whether imposed by statute or otherwise.
They appear in brackets in the Bill and seem to cause potential conflict between this Bill and other statutes referring to the law of contract.
At least one of my colleagues is a lawyer who may be able to say more about the matter, but I want guidance from the Minister. Is there any substance to my suspicion that a statute that protects contractual confidentiality or secrecy—between institutions or between a person and an institution—might collide with what seem to the overriding provisions of the clause? Could that problem be resolved?
I am not clear about what happens when there is a conflict between the absolute requirements of different statutes.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The courts will resolve it.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is an eminent lawyer, but his remark is uncharacteristically unhelpful. I am not sure that it is good enough for the courts to resolve the matter. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is going to an important international convention where he will rub shoulders with people who will ask how Britain is getting on with implementing the protocol. Is it satisfactory that he will tell them that everything is fine with the Bill, apart from matters to be resolved by the courts? The hon. Gentleman will not know how the matters will be resolved, and is unlikely be happy with that. However, perhaps the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs will help us out.

Dr. Howells: The House may be interested to know that I married a Neath girl, but she is not the present hon. Member for Neath.
Article 15 of the additional protocol requires the agency to maintain a stringent regime to ensure that there is effective protection of information. However, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is right: ultimately, the matter will be resolved by the courts.

Mr. Forth: The Government have some serious questions to answer about their international obligations. I am not sure that it is good enough that Ministers attending international meetings to give an account of the Government's commitment to this protocol and to all the treaties that precede it will have to admit that the British courts will resolve any conflict that arises. What if the courts resolve the matter in favour of the statute requiring secrecy and confidentiality rather than disclosure?

Mr. Maclean: By the time that the courts determined that statutory law of contract took precedence, a person


could have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment—the clause 9 penalty for failing to provide information under the Bill. However, might not that person find later that the courts resolve the matter in his favour under statute law?

Mr. Forth: That strikes me as all too possible. It is another potential intrusion on a person's human rights. Conflicts as to which Act overrides another will be institutionalised in our law.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that the courts would decide the matter. Does that mean that our domestic courts could decide whether an international treaty should take precedence when a matter of secrecy is the alleged excuse for non-compliance? What about the courts in other signatory countries that are not independent of their Governments? I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Minister on that.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. His remarks raise a series of questions about the different approaches in different countries. Some countries have democratic accountability and independent judiciaries, but many other signatories to the protocol may not.
Clause 3.1 states:
The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description and to give such supplementary particulars as may be so specified.
What sort of regulations does the Secretary of State have in mind? That is a broad provision. We need some idea of the regulations before we can consent to the Bill.
The reassurances given in the early subsections of clause 4 include the involvement of a justice of the peace and of the Secretary of State, who is an elected person accountable through collective responsibility. The clause also requires that a warrant has to be issued that gives powers only to authorised officers. All that is very reassuring, but clause 4(5) deals with the powers of those authorised officers, and again I feel the need to tread delicately. There are at least three hon. Members present whose expertise in matters electronic is legendary, so I shall be careful about what I say.
My next question is directed to those of my hon. Friends who know about these matters. Clause 4(5) deals with
the powers of an authorised officer who enters premises under the authority of a warrant under this section
and, as set out in clause 4(5)(c), that power is
to require any information which is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be reproduced in a form in which he can read and copy it
What if no person able to access information held electronically is available to perform that task? My knowledge of electronics is scant to minuscule, but do not most systems have a security code or a provision that mean that only a certain number of people can gain access? What if the person who knows the code is not available?

Dr. Lewis: Perhaps I can enlighten my right hon. Friend. I think that he has just put his finger on a reason for one of the apparent anomalies that he identified

earlier—the need to give notification in advance that an inspection is to be made. It would then be held to be unreasonable if the granting of access were not forthcoming.
I thought that my right hon. Friend was going to say that the provision gives no indication as to how the inspector will know whether any such electronically held information exists. Surely the inspector will simply be relying on the candour and good will of the person who has squirrelled away the information in cyberspace.

Mr. Forth: I knew that someone would come to my rescue, and it demonstrates why I should not dwell on it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How does an authorised officer, an inspector or anyone else know what is contained within a system that is extraordinarily complex and may contain different levels of security? How will they know what to look for, or how to exercise the powers provided in clause 4(5)(c)?
I have a simple question on clause 4(6), which the Minister may be able to answer now or, if not, subsequently. Does the term
A constable who enters premises
also cover other ranks of the police? If not, the provision may be unduly restrictive.

Mr. Maclean: I think I am right in saying that "constable" covers every rank of the police, from constable up to chief constable. They all serve in the office of constable. I have indications from elsewhere in the Chamber that that is right.

Mr. Forth: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. That allows me to put that matter immediately to rest, which brings me—

Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I was just coming on to sex. My hon. Friend is keen on that, so I hope that he will not keep me from it.

Mr. Fabricant: I would not like to deter my right hon. Friend from sex—indeed, I am also keen to get on to that subject. However, I am interested in the definition of "constable". We have already heard that inspectors can be other nationals. This may sound like a flippant point, but it is not meant to be. In law, does a constable always mean a British constable, or could it mean a gendarme, a Schultzmann or an officer from any other country? Does it have to be a British police officer?

Mr. Forth: Or a military policeman, perhaps. I will leave others to answer that. I suspect that it will be the sort of police officer with which we are familiar. However, the authorised officer could be any of the agencies or individuals that my hon. Friend mentions, because that is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. We will come in a moment to clause 5, where the real horrors begin. Clause 4 is the reassuring clause, about which we are supposed to feel comfortable.
I want to touch on the intriguing and, to some of us, odd provision that no constable shall search a person of the opposite sex. That may seem self-evident; it may go beyond political correctness. I am sure that it is about


gender and other modern things that we are supposed to be keen on. However, it raises practical difficulties. Will the gender of the people on the premises who will be held to account under the provisions of the protocol always be known before a warrant is exercised? Or will the officers, constables or authorised officers always have to go in multi-sex mode?
These are real and practical requirements. As with giving notice, I am worried that this could, in some circumstances, inhibit the proper execution of the responsibilities under clause 4(7). A woman police constable—if we are still allowed to say that—may not be available. It may not always be possible to have people of all genders available. I do not know how many genders there are supposed to be these days.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Or of all sexual orientations.

Mr. Forth: Perish the thought. However, real, practical difficulties could flow from this apparently politically correct provision.

Mr. Maclean: The problem could perhaps be partially solved if we changed some of the rather sloppy drafting of clause 4(6) which refers simply to a search. I recall that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or other Home Office legislation, search was subdivided into intimate body searches and those which merely involve the removal of a jacket or outer garment. Perhaps if the word were more precisely defined, the sex of the person conducting a superficial, non-intimate search might not be so important.

Mr. Forth: I have been in the House long enough to know not to be led too far down such a track. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was intending to be helpful, but I will leave it to him, with his vast knowledge and experience of these matters, to explore the possibilities of intimate searches or the concealment of nuclear bits and pieces on or in the body. It is not a matter for me.
I am coming perilously close to the conclusion of my remarks. I say that so that whoever follows me can get in the mood. It may seem odd that I shall not be dwelling excessively on clause 5, to which I now turn my attention. Clause 5, which is the most contentious part of the Bill and causes us the most concern, has already been referred to quite extensively during our exchanges and interventions, so I do not need to gild that particular lily.
It is self-evident that clause 5 will cause the most concern. I argued earlier that its provisions may well cause a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. That notwithstanding, it gives the agency unlimited powers to allow foreign nationals to come into this country on an automatic visa. The Government, who represent us and are supposed to protect us, are signing away their power to prevent a foreign national from coming in under the aegis of the agency, which has enormous powers under clause 5.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend see a possibility of conflict if one of the inspectors, allowed in on a year-long visa, is found to be doing something

improper when he is not inspecting, and the Government wish to expel him, as we normally do when unacceptable espionage is carried out? Difficulties could arise if it were claimed that, according to the protocol, his visa could not be withdrawn.

Mr. Forth: Yes, that gives rise to a series of consequential questions on how far the agency inspectors may be covered by diplomatic immunity. Are they simply foreign nationals to whom a visa has been given for the purposes of the protocol and the Bill, or do they have an overriding and superior diplomatic immunity of a kind to which my hon. Friend alludes? I do not know the answer to those questions. The Minister may be able to tell us. This is the sort of matter to which we shall want to return in Committee and on Report.
These examples serve to illustrate why the Bill needs this thorough examination. I have been only superficial so far, of course. The really thorough examination must come, perforce, in Committee and on Report. That is another reason why the Minister will have to tell the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he may have to disappoint his colleagues at this important international meeting by saying that, regrettably, the matter is still under close parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Maclean: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has passed on from the immunity question. However, I am sure that he will recall in the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, when it was set up, that article 15 on privileges and immunity states:
The agency shall enjoy in the territory of each member such legal capacity and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions.
There are also other provisions about capacity, privileges and immunities.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has confirmed our worst fears. We are adding privilege upon privilege, access upon access and right upon right. This appears to be outside the control of the Government who, for the time being, represent the people of this country.
Clause 5(4) and (5)—which deal with an authorised officer or constable accompanying an agency inspector—may seem reassuring, but the word "may" is included. I would have preferred "shall". We need the maximum reassurance, and to weaken the provision in this way could give rise to greater concern.

Mr. Bercow: Is not the concern otherwise that the use of the word "may" in clause 5(5) could conflict with the requirements of clause 5(7), and we would not want an internal contradiction within one clause of this significant Bill?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's forensic and analytical skills are unsurpassed. I have identified sufficient contradictions within the protocol to cause concern, and we are now teasing out contradictions within the Bill. Thank goodness for proper parliamentary scrutiny. If, by some ghastly mistake, the Bill—in its previous incarnation as a private Member's Bill—had been passed, as it had been disgracefully suggested, without proper scrutiny, goodness knows what would have happened.
On the face of it, clause 5(6) should provide reassurance, but fails to do so completely. It says:
in any proceedings any question arises whether a person at any time when purporting to exercise powers under this section was or was not an Agency inspector, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relevant to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
We do not know when that certificate will be available. Will it become available automatically, before the agency inspector begins his task? Will it be made available by the Secretary of State during the inspection if a query arises? Will it be available subsequently? If it is available only subsequently, it will be no use whatever, as there is no point in looking for the Secretary of State's approval afterwards.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the answer contained in the clause, where it says
If in any proceedings any question arises?
Surely that presupposes that the certificate will be called for only if there has been a challenge to the credentials of an inspector, which would delay and undermine the efficacy of the inspection.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may be correct, and the Minister will have to look at this again. All Bills are carefully drafted, and each word has meaning and significance. However, the implication is that, if a matter arises during the inspection, a certificate may be required, suggesting that the Secretary of State would have to provide a certificate during an inspection. Those of us with even a glancing knowledge of Government know that that is unlikely. The danger is that this invalidate the inspection process.
We are back to the paradox of the Bill. The protocol and the Bill give the most enormous powers not only to domestic institutions—which at least have a degree of accountability and are subject to the force of the law—but to these strange and foreign institutions, manned by foreign nationals, who will come to this country and will be unaccountable to either the democratic or judicial process. On the other hand, we have apparent weakness, deficiencies and lacunae in the protocol and Bill which may undermine the effectiveness of the proposal.
The Bill is a mess, and the more I look at it, the more doubts I have. I hope that, even if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, it will want to examine it closely in Committee and subsequently.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I shall try to offer some guidance to the House in accordance with "Erskine May". Second Reading debates are intended to deal with general principles. I have given the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—and other right hon. and hon. Members who have intervened—considerable leeway. However, those interventions which go into detail are matters for the Committee stage, when the House is entitled to the closest scrutiny of any proposed legislation before it. We will now proceed on the basis that we are dealing with the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you expect, notwithstanding the helpful guidance

that you have just proffered to the House, that, where a point of detail is of concern to a Member to such a degree that it will affect his or her judgment as to the merits of the principle of the Bill, it is legitimate to raise such an inquiry, either via a speech or through an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is always a matter of proportionality. It is perfectly in order to flag up a point that might require detailed examination at the appropriate stage of the Bill. It is not in order to have that detailed scrutiny of a small point or a sub-clause at Second Reading. "Erskine May" is quite clear; we should deal with general principles.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it would have been enormously helpful to me had you given it earlier. During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was fretting that my speech was far too general, and I was beginning to worry that you would rule me out of order. I have therefore spent a little while trying to get the details that you now say I do not need.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) kindly referred. As he said, the Committee is carrying out an inquiry into weapons of mass destruction, which is highly relevant to the matter before us. I am at a disadvantage, because whereas the hon. Gentleman will have been given by the authors a number of documents—to which he has, quite properly, referred—much of the paperwork that I have received is covered by the rules of the House. That means that I cannot refer to them without being in danger of disclosing confidential information that has not yet been published by the Select Committee.

Mr. Colman: he matters that I read out earlier were from the written evidence given at a Select Committee meeting. I was not quoting evidence given to the Select Committee orally, which has not yet been disclosed.

Mr. Wilshire: I as not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was disclosing confidential information. I was saying that I would find it difficult to follow his helpful points and references to publicly available information. The difficulty is mine, not his. I am not sure what is confidential and what is not. I have heard everything, whereas the hon. Gentleman has heard only that part that is public.
I am sorry that the Minister did not explain why the Bill should have been given priority by the Government over other parliamentary business. I regularly read in the newspapers, and hear it said around the Palace, that the Government are pressed for parliamentary time, but we have been offered no explanation of why the Bill has been given priority. It has been hanging around for a couple of years without appearing urgent, so why has it become urgent now?

Dr. Julian Lewis: I pologise for having missed the early stages of this debate, but I am disturbed to hear that the Bill has been attempted systematically over two years or so. We have been told that the UK would be one of


relatively few signatories to the additional protocol, which suggests that the Government were once anxious that we should sign it before virtually anyone else.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that point in some detail, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He should keep it in mind that only eight countries have signed up to the protocol, and he will see why I think that figure relevant when I come to discuss the countries involved.

Mr. David Davis: There is a stronger case than the one my hon. Friend is making. During the past two years, the strategy behind the non-proliferation and test ban treaties has become flawed. India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons. It is easy to disappear into the minutiae of individual clauses in Second Reading debates, but we should be rethinking the entire purpose of the Bill to see whether we can do something to stop proliferators by mechanisms other than this failed one.

Mr. Wilshire: Exactly so. I shall return to that point when I have concluded my response to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who suggested that there had been regular attempts during the past two years to pass the Bill through the House. What he did not hear earlier was a discussion of how few attempts had, in fact, been made. The Bill was tried as a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Putney, which is why that hon. Gentleman made such a helpful speech explaining his position. In two years, the Government's best effort lay in having a private Member divert himself from whatever he felt passionate about to pilot through a Bill that they wanted to shuffle through late on a Friday afternoon. Nothing much else has been done.
Only eight countries have signed the protocol, suggesting that it is not all that important. The Minister has made no effort to tell us what has suddenly changed.

Mr. Savidge: I want to correct an impression possibly given by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in his intervention. Neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a fact from which we should surely draw the lesson that it would be better to strengthen and widen the treaty.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman reinforces what my right hon. Friend said. However, we must tackle a point on which the Minister conspicuously failed to touch—why this matter should be given priority over others.

Mr. David Davis: May I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that I negotiated the test ban treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom? Both that treaty and the non-proliferation treaty have a proliferation aim built into them. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that India and Pakistan have not signed, but those countries provide a clear weather vane as to the direction in which the world is going and the ineffectiveness of the treaty.

Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful for that intervention. It adds some facts to the debate on a matter on which my

right hon. Friend is an expert. It also puts me on notice to watch my step, as I am standing just behind a walking expert—

Mr. Davis: A sitting expert.

Mr. Wilshire: I take the point.

Mr. Bercow: I may be able to resolve the uncertainty in my hon. Friend's mind about why Ministers attach such importance to a speedy passage of the Bill. Would that not assist the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he makes his scheduled visit to an important international conference, at which he will mix with extremely important, highly respected, influential figures from the international community? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will wish to display his wares in the form of a successfully passed Bill.

Mr. Wilshire: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but while I am many things, some of which I hope he approves of, I am not a clairvoyant. My ability to answer questions about what may be in the mind of the Minister is therefore minimal, if not non-existent. I must leave it to the Minister to tell us what he has in mind.

Mr. Leigh: This conversazione between my hon. Friend and others worries me enormously. A few centuries ago, Parliament was prepared to declare civil war because a Government sought, through the Ship Money Act 1640, to allow inspectors to enter private property. The Government sought to edge this Bill in through the private Member's Bill procedure, then sat on it for two years before introducing it on a quiet Monday afternoon. What is going on? Where are our parliamentary colleagues who should stand up for the freedom of the individual to prevent the Executive—and foreigners—from invading their homes?

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a splendid attempt to do exactly that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is a champion of the rights of the individual, will do the same while I cheer him on.

Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the point made about the Minister of State going to the international conference to mix with others who have signed the protocol, ratified it and brought it into law, may I point out that the Minister will in fact mix with very few people—the presidents of Uzbekistan, New Zealand, Monaco, Jordan, Japan and Indonesia, and the Pope?

Mr. Wilshire: I wish to talk about that point in due course, but having been to Uzbekistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee and tasted the flavour of its regime and heard something of its President, I sincerely recommend to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he take some precaution against being bored out of his mind, and that he not pay too much attention to any assurance that he may be given.

Mr. Colman: The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the UK Government should take a lead in ensuring


that the world becomes less threatening, and in non-proliferation. On that basis, does he support the Minister's visit to the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty; and will he provide leadership by ensuring that we ratify the protocol ahead of the meeting?

Mr. Wilshire: All will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman as my speech unfolds. Other Members may not know what I do about the hon. Gentleman, and they may have thought that he was about to say something about the Holy See. He and I both happen to be Methodists, so I knew that he would not, but I shall clarify my position on his other points in due course.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be seduced by the invitation offered by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), and that he will agree that it is much more important to scrutinise the Bill properly and get it right than to boost the ego of a minor, junior Minister who is footling off to a ridiculous conference to exchange ludicrous pleasantries with lots of other self-important people.

Mr. Wilshire: I have disclosed to the House the masonic-like links between myself and the hon. Member for Putney, but the Methodist Church is a broad one; its members have many points of view. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on many matters, and that is one of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is not conducting Question Time. He should make some progress on his speech because other hon. Members are trying to catch my eye.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me your protection from my hon. Friends and from the hon. Member for Putney. I shall indeed do as you suggest.
Although the Bill is largely non-controversial—

Mr. Forth: Nonsense.

Mr. Wilshire: I said "largely". There are, none the less, some huge reservations about the detail of the measure that have not yet been mentioned.
We need to consider three matters before deciding whether the Bill should be read a Second time. The first partly relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Putney. Will the Bill help to make the world a safer place? We must face up to that question and we must put the measure into the general context of nuclear control and disarmament. Before we vote, we must ask whether the measure is key to making progress on those matters or whether it is merely a sideline.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must be a sideline? It is not merely that only eight countries have ratified the agreement, but other countries such as the Russian Federation, the Ukraine, Belarus, North Korea, Libya, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Within the recollection of the Chair, that list has already been read out; there is no need for us to hear it again.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall not prejudge the question of whether the measure is a side show. I ask my hon. Friend

the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to permit me to develop my arguments and then to make up his mind, before he votes, whether the Bill is at the heart of the progress that we should be making.
The second point that we must consider is that if the answer to my first question were "yes"—if the House judged that the Bill would enable us to make progress—we ought then to ask whether the Bill is really the right way to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst posed many questions but, as you have pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we cannot hold a detailed debate at this stage, so I shall merely suggest which details should be considered and which questions should be debated in Committee.
The third general point—on human rights—was touched on by my right hon. Friend. Whatever judgment we make as to whether the human rights issues are such that the Bill should not be read a Second time, no one in the House would seriously argue that there are no human rights concerns to be addressed before we make that decision. We must acknowledge that the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend raised some genuine concerns as to human rights. We must decide whether those concerns are more or less important than the nuclear issues raised by the Bill and the progress that is being attempted with it.
That is the approach that we should take on human rights, because the details—as your ruling made clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—on those concerns are a matter for Committee and for Report. However, the general principle—whether or not we have heard enough about those overall concerns—ought to suggest that we do not give the Bill a Second Reading, because it abuses human rights so fundamentally that no justification can override that matter.

Mr. Bercow: Does not the answer to my hon. Friend's question depend on the content of the regulations under which the powers in the Bill will be exercised? As that is a material consideration when making a judgment as to the acceptability or otherwise, in principle, of the Bill, would it not be helpful if the Government were to inform us, before the conclusion of the debate, whether the statutory instrument, or instruments, in question would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?

Mr. Wilshire: That is an important point. The Minister has been scribbling furiously throughout the contributions to the debate; I am sure that he will have noted it.

Dr. Howells: My handwriting is not curious; it is perfectly legible and always has been.

Mr. Wilshire: I am disappointed; I thought we had saved the Minister the trouble of having to write down yet another question that he will have to answer. Furthermore, I think that he misheard me. I hope that Hansard will record that I said that he was furiously writing, not that he was curiously writing. I do not think that he has ever written to me, so I do not know what his writing is like. However, perhaps his response explains why he referred to grunting earlier, when you were not in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker; the Minister may not be hearing accurately, although he seemed to be having problems with his glasses earlier.
I want to consider the Bill in context. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that he wanted the Bill to be passed before the start of the review conference in New York later this month. In that case, we need to ask the following questions: what are the issues for the non-proliferation treaty in New York, and how does the Bill link to what the Minister hopes to achieve from the conference? We need to be clear about the fact that the Bill arises from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; that is the context for the Bill. We must also be aware that the treaty is only one among a range of nuclear weapon controls and reduction initiatives that we need to take into account. That is why I asked whether the Bill was the right way to progress or whether we should be taking an interest in some of the other initiatives.
A key activity resulting from the NPT is the fact that the United Nations has negotiated safeguard agreements with a range of member states. I shall not re-read the list, but we need to understand that we are dealing with a UN-driven activity as a result of which several states have signed such agreements. The list is long, although some significant countries have not signed up. However, we should note that Iraq has signed up to that UN initiative, so it would seem that the current agreements are inadequate. I am sure that we would all agree on that. That is why I have no difficulty with the Minister's point that we need to do something. There is clear evidence that the way we tackled the matter in the past has not brought the results for which we hoped; I do not quarrel with him on that point.
The House should be aware of the curious fact that, unlike non-nuclear weapons states, which are under some obligation if they have signed the NPT, the nuclear weapons states are not under a binding obligation to have signed an agreement in the first place. The Minister has not touched on that point. I should be grateful if he, or somebody else, told me why the five countries that are most able to supply material to non-nuclear weapons states are those that are exempted from an obligation under the NPT.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend see a parallel between that point and permanent membership of the UN Security Council? In effect, international treaties—like international organisations—have to take the facts of the military situation into account. The NPT regime was constructed—as was the UN—in the light of the fact that those five countries have nuclear weapons. The idea is to take that salient fact into account while building up a regime that will have some effect.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful point but, irrespective of his impeccable logic I still find it curious that the very five countries that are best able to supply to non-nuclear weapons states the material that they need—and hence to cause problems for the rest of the world—are left to make a voluntary agreement with the United Nations on this matter.
It is to the great credit of this country and Governments of all political persuasions—I do not seek to make a party political point—that we have entered into voluntary agreements of the sort that we are discussing. We have to understand that because we made a voluntary agreement

in the first place, we are in the same position again in that we are volunteering to sign an additional protocol. It is to the Government's credit that once again we are prepared voluntarily to do what other countries are not prepared to do even though they are obliged to do so.

Mr. Maclean: It is only fair to point out that although we are prepared to sign up voluntarily, once again our volunteering is strictly limited to civil nuclear installations and research facilities; the Bill and the protocol do not apply to military nuclear activities.

Mr. Wilshire: I agree, and one of the issues that I want to address later in my speech is whether the additional protocol will make any difference. My right hon. Friend makes a valid point that the Bill does not go as far as some of us would like. That does not undermine my statement that it is to this country's credit that we have gone this far, but he properly says that the Government could go even further if they wanted to. There is nothing to stop us volunteering to do whatever we think is in the interests of world peace and world disarmament.

Dr. Lewis: I hesitate to correct my hon. Friend, but could he be a little more careful and not equate the concept of world peace with that of world disarmament? Often the one is not served by the other.

Mr. Wilshire: I could not have put it better myself. I stand accused of sloppy speech making, for which I apologise to my hon. Friend and the House. He captures a sentiment that I often express to other people. If the Hansard reporters could go back and correct that point, my speech would make much more sense along those lines.
It must be made clear that even if we went further than the voluntary agreement, we would be the only ones doing so. What difference would we make if others were not co-operating? If such agreements are to be effective, and if the Bill is to make a difference to world disarmament, it is important that every country that is a signatory to the United Nations charter should do the same as us. I wonder to what extent we can go on making such gestures without asking whether everybody else is following or whether they are ignoring those gestures when it suits them. I think the latter.
We have to ask ourselves why, despite what we have done, there is growing concern throughout the world about progress on nuclear weapons control and disarmament. When the process started in the 1970s, there was huge hope, but that has begun to dissipate. Before we give the Bill a Second Reading, we have to ask whether it will help to get the process moving again at the speed that we desire.
If I recall correctly, an hon. Member asked whether this was a case of good boys making gestures to make themselves feel good. Does such legislation make good boys better, while rogue states carry on regardless and laugh at us for making gestures?

Dr. Lewis: In support of what my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman. He has developed the habit of addressing the hon. Member to whom he is speaking; he should always address the Chair.

Dr. Lewis: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that you refer to the direction in which I am facing rather than my terms of address, because I have endeavoured to use the correct ones.
Does my hon. Friend realise that his remarks are supported by the fact that in 1992 we had the revelation that the biological weapons convention, which was concluded in 1972, shortly after the NPT, was systematically flouted by the Soviet Union, as it then was? While western democracies disarmed in accordance with the convention's provisions, the Soviet Union exploited their disarmament by redoubling its efforts to acquire lethal systems.

Mr. Wilshire: Those are very important points. I intended to come on to them, but they have been well made by my hon. Friend, so I will not need to go into detail in that part of my speech.

Mr. Savidge: Surely the very point of the intervention by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is that there was insufficient verification of adherence to that particular treaty. That is why we require verification, which the Bill tries to supply.

Mr. Wilshire: I said at the outset, and will say again as I develop my points, that I have no objection in principle to that objective in this Bill or any other. However, the verification that the hon. Gentleman wants has to apply to every signatory state, and not only to the good boys who are trying to be better.

Mr. Maclean: Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making is that either we have a protocol with no teeth which everyone signs without proper verification, or we have a protocol such as that in the Bill which has teeth and includes verification, but which will simply not be signed by the countries that we want to sign it. Some of us suspect that the Bill is a gesture, despite its teeth, because the countries that we need to inspect will not touch the protocol with a bargepole.

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the tests that we have to apply before we vote tonight is whether, having listened to contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we think that the Bill is window dressing or whether we believe that it will make a difference. We have to look back to the beginnings of the NPT and be clear in our minds about its basic objectives so that we can ask whether the Bill advances them.
The NPT was based on the two principles of nuclear weapons states disarming and other states not seeking to acquire the weapons that nuclear weapons states would get rid of. We need to ask ourselves what progress has been made before we can decide whether the Bill will help. The NPT started out with five nuclear weapons states and the rest of the world was non-nuclear. We now know for certain that the five have become seven and there are question marks over other countries—some are probable and some are possible nuclear weapons states.
We need to know where we stand with countries such as Israel, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. Dare I suggest that although the current Government of South Africa have renounced nuclear weapons, there is still a question mark about what happened in the past and whether they know the whole story? I mean that as no criticism; I just put that point into the pot. We started with five nuclear weapons states; we know that we have seven, but the number could be significantly higher.
We have to decide whether we have made progress and ask why non-nuclear weapons states are becoming restive. They notice that progress on the disarmament agreements entered into by the nuclear weapons states has slowed down and is not as fast as they would have hoped. They also notice that the United States is setting up a national missile defence system, which leads certain countries to believe that they need to acquire nuclear weapons, or to develop more weapons, to counter it.
That is the context of the non-proliferation treaty—the point that we have reached. The Minister tells us that the Bill is essential to advance the non-proliferation treaty. Given the worries that I have mentioned, is the measure as central and urgent as he wants us to believe it is? He will no doubt address that question in his winding-up speech.
We must be sure that the Bill will help to reassure non-nuclear weapons states—otherwise we will not encourage them to turn their backs on developing their own nuclear weapons. We know that the safeguard agreements to which we and many other countries have signed up have not stopped the clandestine development of nuclear weapons. We discovered that only too clearly during the Gulf war. We then discovered what had been going on in Iraq.

Mr. Colman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He points out that the previous safeguards agreement did not give the International Atomic Energy Agency the right to search for and identify nuclear weapons in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq was a signatory. Does that not clearly show the need for the additional protocol to be put in place and made to apply to all the countries that do not claim to have nuclear weapons?

Mr. Wilshire: I would not go that far down the track with the hon. Gentleman. I accept that we need to do something, but I have some doubts about whether the Bill meets that need. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that safeguard agreements patently have not worked. There can be no dispute about that, since we discovered what went on in Iraq, and have subsequently discovered what has been going on in North Korea. In those cases, there can be no argument about the fact that the current arrangements have failed, and we do not know whether they may also have failed in other countries.
We must ask ourselves whether the Bill will increase the chances of detection and prevention: I have my doubts. When the Minister was challenged, he said that he thought it would do what was necessary. One of the reasons that he gave was that the operators are happy with the terms of the Bill. I wanted to intervene on the Minister at the time, but although he took several other interventions, I did not get the chance. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman for that.
I was not impressed with the idea that the operators who were to be inspected were happy. If I were an operator who was up to no good, and the Minister presented the details to me and asked whether they were okay, and I spotted a huge great loophole, I would still smile quietly to the Minister and say, "I am delighted, Minister. I'll sign that with pleasure." The fact that the operators are happy does not get me any further in deciding whether I want to vote with the Minister or against him tonight.
The Minister also said that he was happy with the Bill. I hope that he will tell us when he replies how he reached that contented state. I am not a nuclear physicist. I am not sure whether he is, but if he is, he will have understood all the arguments. I, as a layman, have struggled, and it would not mean much to the House if I said that I was happy.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us who or what led him to his present state of happiness; who offered him the advice that persuaded him to back the Bill; and whether those who gave him that advice had any vested interest in the nuclear industry. If they have links to an operator, they will have said, "Minister, you can be happy." The operators may have seen a loophole, as may the experts, if they were wearing two hats.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is there not a further difficulty? Whereas the civil operators in this country have no intention, one hopes, of trying surreptitiously to flout the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty, they are not best placed to judge whether the Bill will close the loopholes that could be exploited by operators in other countries who would be minded to try to dodge the provisions of the NPT.

Mr. Wilshire: That is a valid point. I assume that most or all of the additional protocols being negotiated will contain broadly the same provisions, so a loophole in the United Kingdom would be a loophole in North Korea or Iraq. That reinforces the argument that it is wrong to accept that the operators are content, in whichever country.
As well as considering the NPT, we must consider the Bill in the context of other issues arising out of nuclear control and disarmament. By focusing on the Bill and the issues under the NPT, we may be suggesting that other initiatives are less important, because we are not giving time tonight to them. Should the comprehensive test ban treaty be given greater priority than the Bill gives to the non-proliferation treaty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss that on Second Reading of this Bill, which deals with the control of civil nuclear power.

Mr. Wilshire: The issue that we are discussing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We may be discussing the inspection of civil facilities, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Precisely. That is what we are discussing in the context of the Bill, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to stick with it.

Mr. Wilshire: I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the House is being invited to make up its mind whether the Bill is the correct measure that we should be considering if we are trying to achieve a safer world, which is what the debate is about—whether we should

focus on the NPT, which is the origin of the Bill, or whether Parliament should use its time to discuss other measures. I believe that that is relevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled accordingly.

Mr. Wilshire: If that is so, I sincerely hope that when the House—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note your ruling, but may I draw to your attention the fact that, on Second Reading in another place, the Minister referred extensively to the NPT? The Bill arises out of the non-proliferation treaty in the sense that it applies to those states that are not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue with the ruling that I have given. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was trying to move on to quite another subject, and my ruling applied to that. I call Mr. Wilshire.

Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I readily accept your ruling about the test ban treaty. I anticipate that the references that I believe should be made to the anti-ballistic missile treaty would come within the same ruling, but perhaps you will allow me to say in passing that the House should determine whether that should be given priority in relation to the Bill.
With regard to the NPT and the Bill, we are seeking to prevent the spread from countries that produce to countries that do not produce. The Bill sets out to achieve better verification and inspection. We should consider whether it would be more helpful to address the production of fissile material wherever it is produced, than to say that we know where it is produced and that we will make sure that it does not spread. We could usefully be saying to ourselves that, rather than trying for more verification and inspection of facilities in countries that we know are already capable of producing fissile material, we ought to be trying to do something about the stalled debate—as I understand it, it has been stalled since about 1996—about a treaty to prevent such production.
We must also put the Bill into the context of current international security. We cannot divorce what we are doing—however much of a gesture it may be—from that. We must apply the test of whether, if we are concerned about world security, the Bill is the best way in which to act. I see that you are anxious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not stray. I shall therefore simply flag up two points and not develop them, although I believe them to be relevant.
In the context of what has happened in Kosovo and Chechnya, is an additional protocol likely to make the world a safer place? The issue that I would explore, if it were in order for me to do so, would be whether rogue states were learning that it is worth signing up to the protocol and then ignoring its provisions—because a country such as Russia, which has nuclear weapons, can get away with human rights abuses whereas a country that does not have such weapons cannot. We must take that issue into account when we vote on whether the Bill represents the right priority.
In pursuing such an approach to disarmament, we must also consider what is happening in the United States, with its international missile defences. If I understand the


Government's thinking, we are about to support the United States in that matter. Certainly, my Front-Bench team suggested that it would support that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how that can relate to civil nuclear power in this country.

Mr. Wilshire: I of course accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I would again point out that that issue was addressed from the Front Bench at the beginning of the debate. I would like to join that debate, but, obviously, I accept your ruling. I merely flag up the point that, if one country's system might force rogue states to flout the terms of the additional protocol, perhaps the best way of stopping proliferation is to put pressure on countries such as the United States not to do things that will provoke other countries into ignoring such matters.
The Bill enables the Government to fulfil an obligation to which they have already committed themselves. The Government have already signed the additional protocol and, from reading Government briefing papers, I think that that raises a couple of issues on which hon. Members have not yet touched in any detail, but which I seek to mention. Although, again, I will not explore the issue, such action shows that the Government of the day may sign a treaty, agreement or protocol without any reference to the House. Can that be right? Ultimately, in Committee and on Report, all that we will be able to get our teeth into is whether the Bill is the right way of doing what the Government have already done. That gives me the chance to flag up yet again the point that one of the things that is wrong with the way in which we govern ourselves is that treaties do not come before the House as they should.
The other thing that I noticed when reading the explanatory memorandum and information in the Library is that we were not able to sign the additional protocol until the EU Council of Ministers had approved it. The House must consider whether we should have to go cap in hand to Brussels to be allowed to make arrangements in relation to something that is so vital to our sovereignty and the defence of the nation as nuclear defence and capability. That is a monstrous arrangement, which is tucked away in the footnotes but should be highlighted so that people may understand. We could not even have gone as far as debating the Bill if the Council of Ministers had not already said, "It is all right by us; now you go ahead and do something about it." That is a scandal.
One other preliminary issue that we must consider is whether we are able to justify such use of time. As has been mentioned, of the 193 members of the United Nations, just 45 have signed up thus far to an additional protocol. Of those, only eight have brought it into force. The list comprises an odd bunch of very serious players on the world stage on such issues—one would expect Australia and New Zealand to sign up to it—and others, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred, whose signatures do not add any weight to the argument for our signing up as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if this issue has been raised already, but it occurs to me that Ghana's signing up to the protocol ought to be

questioned. In what possible activity could the Ghanaians be involved that might pertain to non-military nuclear fuel? Does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Wilshire: As I said to another of my hon. Friends, I am good at a number of things, but knowing what goes on in Ghana is not one of them, so I cannot add to my hon. Friend's point.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilshire: Perhaps my hon. Friend is an expert on the matter.

Dr. Lewis: Far from being able to answer the question, I want to ask my hon. Friend another one. Is it not curious that so many countries, after such an amount of time, have not yet signed up to the protocol? I wonder what is holding them back—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in danger of repetition, and I am not prepared to allow that much further. The rules about tedious repetition extend from one speaker to another and are not just confined to the person who is addressing the House.

Mr. Wilshire: I take that point entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn to the Bill itself. One thing that we can all say about it is that it is short. I sincerely hope that the House is grateful for that. I wish, as I am sure do other hon. Members, that more Bills had only 12 clauses. It would make life a great deal simpler and we would have better legislation. Thank goodness, as far as I can see from the explanatory notes, the Bill before us only seeks to do four things, which must be something of a record for a Government Bill. I for one am happy on this occasion to applaud the Government for that. I do not say that easily; I try not to applaud them too often—but we are grateful for Bills like this.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will forgive me for saying that, of the Bill's four objectives, three are relatively non-controversial—although my right hon. Friend rightly referred to the details. The fourth objective is most certainly controversial.
As my right hon. Friend demonstrated, although the Bill is short and to the point, the protocol is a wholly different matter. The protocol runs to eleven and a quarter pages of turgid text and twenty-three and a half pages of annexes which I find it incredibly difficult to get my mind round. I wonder whether anybody is any wiser than I am about the explanatory note half way down page 18 of the protocol, which states:
The materials used for centrifuge rotating components are:
(a) Maraging steel capable of an ultimate tensile strength of 2.05 x 109 N/m2 (300,000 psi) or more.
There is more; there is much more like that. I hope that the Minister will tell us what it means, because I'm blowed if I know. Yet we are being asked to say that it is right to sign up to such turgid stuff.
Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a series of points about the protocol, you made a ruling about detail, Mr. Deputy


Speaker, so I shall content myself with saying that if I were not subject to your ruling, I would raise 10 items that my right hon. Friend did not mention. I would have liked to consider those in some detail, but I shall simply give notice that 10 questions require an answer. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, I shall ensure that they are asked in Committee or on Report. If 1 am not a member of the Committee, I shall raise them on Report.
The Minister may genuinely have hoped that the Bill would become law before Easter, but he was being wildly optimistic. Perhaps it will be law by Easter 2001. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not too disappointed. I shall not burden the House with details of the 10 questions now, but I shall raise them later.

Mr. Forth: In fairness to the Minister, we were told that he did not want the Bill rushed through in an unseemly manner. He was thinking of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who was going to attend an important conference—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have already heard that many times.

Mr. Wilshire: I have anxieties about the protocol, but the Minister, hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to know that I have fewer questions about the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was so effective and efficient in going through the detail before you made your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he raised all the points that I was going to make.
I see that the Minister is poised with his pen. I shall therefore refer him to clause 4(2), which provides that an authorised officer may appear "at any reasonable hour." I am suspicious of such phrases. They get into legislation only to make money for solicitors and barristers, who can argue about what constitutes a reasonable hour. I hope that the Minister will give that serious thought. An authorised officer can either go somewhere or he cannot. Of course, that is to prejudge whether it should be allowed to happen in the first place.
Clause 4(5) sets out
The powers of an authorised officer who enters premises …
I am slightly worried about the power that paragraph (a) contains. It provides the power for the officer
to take with him such other persons and such equipment as appear to him to be necessary …
That is an open invitation for the world and his neighbour to go in with hobnail boots. If an authorised officer is told, "You can take whom you like," we maximise the opportunity for people from, for example, MI5, MI6, the KGB or the CIA to get in the coach after they have persuaded the authorised officer that they need to go along. The Minister should consider that.
We should reflect on how the Bill has come about and what has led to tonight's circumstances. As I said earlier, and as other hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill is an unexpected consequence of the Gulf war. At the time of that war, we had no idea that our safeguard arrangements were inadequate. Our discovery that Iraq

has been developing nuclear weapons while the agreements to which it has signed up exist means that we have to take action. We have made the same discovery about North Korea.
We must establish whether the United Nations, as an international agency, or the security services of various countries of the world extracted that information. In the case of Iraq, perhaps the armies of the world made the discovery. While there is some consensus about the need to make the agreement stronger through the protocol, we must ask about the way in which we made the discovery. If the safeguard agreements did not reveal what was going wrong, why are we confident that a United Nations-orchestrated additional protocol will do that? Perhaps it would be more sensible to ask whether we should look to our security services and those of other countries to ensure that international treaties are not breached.
We must ask ourselves whether the Bill will do the trick. If we have more information, inspectors and reporting, will the world be a safer place? I do not suggest that I know the answer, but the question must be asked.
We must consider human rights, which are relevant to the debate. You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not into detail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the matter and I shall say only that I wholly appreciate his anxieties and those of my other hon. Friends. I shall not repeat them, but I hope that the Minister has listened to them, and will not believe that we raised them spuriously.
There are genuine human rights concerns. It is proposed that international inspectors can come into the United Kingdom without the civil safeguards that we have come to take for granted over the centuries. When the Minister mentioned the subject at the beginning of the debate, he suggested that we were wrong to think of them as foreign inspectors coming into the United Kingdom. I tried to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman was too kind in giving way to everybody else, and missed my jumping up and down. He suggested that we were being paranoid by referring to foreigners and pointed out that they might be Englishmen and women. Yes, they might be cuddly Englishmen and women—

Mr. Forth: They might be Welsh.

Mr. Wilshire: No, Welsh is different. We shall stick with English because I am English and proud of it, and I believe that the suggestion that my fellow countrymen and women might carry out the inspections is relevant. The Minister was not making a fair point. He failed to tell the House that if Englishmen or Englishwomen sign up to work for the United Nations or any other international organisation, they have to give an undertaking that they will put to one side their nationality, or any bias or affection that derives from being Englishmen or women, and work as though they were internationalists. It is as if they sign up to be foreigners. The Minister failed to make that point.

Mr. Keetch: To follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, if an Englishman who joins the United Nations ceases to be English and becomes international, an Iraqi who joins the United Nations ceases to be Iraqi and becomes international. We should therefore fear none of the inspectors.

Mr. Wilshire: I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether he welcomes international inspectors,


wherever they were born. The hon. Gentleman has a right to welcome people who come in to the United Kingdom with hobnail boots, go where they will, search where and whom they will and turn places upside down in defiance of people's human rights and civil liberties. I trust that his electors will notice that. I do not agree with him.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should at least be some reciprocity? People should not inspect us unless they belong to nations that have signed the agreement. That would enable us to inspect them.

Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that that is a valid point. In those circumstances, we would have to consider the additional protocols that other countries were signing.
All that said, even though the Bill is brief, it raises big issues. Its introduction is an admission that the NPT is not working as well as it should be and that the safeguard agreements that have been signed up to are unsatisfactory. The Bill is an admission of failure thus far. Its introduction also implies that the additional protocols should be our top priority. Are they the best or the only way forward? I do not know. That is for the Minister to say, but he gave no justification for that point.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the Bill raises serious human rights matters and also diverts the attention of those who are not satisfied that that is the top priority from other crucial nuclear weapons issues that I have not been able to discuss in my brief contribution. I conclude that the Bill will probably make good boys such as us feel better, but will do little, if anything, for world peace.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I apologise for missing the early part of the debate. I was meeting the new chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in my capacity as secretary of the all-party race and community group, and to show my commitment to equality I missed all three Front-Bench speeches. I apologise to those Members and to the Speaker, who has responsibility for upholding the conventions of the House.
Chunks of the speech of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) were interesting. He asked the key question, "Will the Bill make the world a safer place."? The answer is an unequivocal yes. I do not mind scrutiny being applied by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I did the same from the Opposition Benches—but the Opposition should not lose the overview of the Bill's purpose. What is the alternative to non-proliferation and treaties authorising verification and what would we get if we dismantled those treaties? It would be nuclear weapons chaos—a free for all. There would be more rogue states because there would be no treaty to contain them. There would be greater danger to us and greater risk of war, and it would be more likely that nuclear weapons would be used.
I give the example of North Korea, which wanted to opt out of the non-proliferation treaty. Only United Nations pressure, which persuaded it to sign up, made a difference. I support the principles of the Bill, which strengthen the international non-proliferation regulation and verification system.

Mr. Fabricant: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the treaty will have no impact unless the rogue states

become signatories. Will he explore the possibility of applying sanctions, although I do not know what sort, to what the UN would call rogue states—North Korea and even Libya, for example—that have so far not signed the treaty?

Mr. Cohen: I am not in favour of sanctions, which lead to all sorts of problems. Iraq is an example of that. It is better to have a treaty system in place so that rogue states can be included and encouraged to sign. If there were no treaty system, there would be no incentive and no pressure to sign up to anything, and that would lead to more rogue states.
As a long-standing supporter of controls on nuclear weapons and the materials that could be used to make them, I support the strengthening of nuclear safeguards carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is imperative that those strengthened safeguards are applied equally across the globe and I am proud to see a Labour Government helping to enhance the global effort to stop nuclear proliferation.
As a long-standing supporter of the goal of global nuclear disarmament, I am keen for the nuclear weapon states—the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, France and China—to be covered by stricter safeguards arrangements. The hon. Member for Spelthorne made the interesting point that there was dissilusion in non-nuclear weapons states because the nuclear weapons states have not been seen to make enough progress. Subjecting them to stricter safeguards arrangements is a way of making a bit more progress.
Nuclear safeguards form an important part of the international verification measures that will be required when we achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. The more experience of verification measures that all those states acquire, the more confident they will eventually become in moving to a world free of nuclear weapons. The Bill is a good measure, but a few matters could be tightened up. The most significant of the issues that I want to raise is Crown immunity, which has been discussed previously. In the 1980s, Lord Ashley said that a lot of Crown immunity should go from legislation. The previous Government, under the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), introduced the citizens charter, which recognised the problem that legislation did not always cover Government activities. In a written answer, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then President of the Board of Trade, stated:
An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound … Crown immunity is being … reduced, as legislative opportunities arise.—[Official Report, 22 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 376W.]
We could have expected Crown immunity to go gradually as opportunities arose, but that is not the case here. I ask a simple question: why is there no provision to bind the Crown? Duties and obligations are placed on people inside and outside government, but leaving the Government's legal status in doubt would profoundly weaken the Bill. What would happen if a country with a reputation such as Iraq, Iran or Libya were to pass similar legislation? What if Colonel Gaddafi were to say, "Yes, we have implemented legislation for strengthened safeguards, but of course it applies only to Government


operations on a voluntary basis. The Government can ignore the legislation if they want"? The British Government would be apoplectic.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous in giving way. Is not it more likely that Colonel Gaddafi would say, "Britain has implemented legislation with regard only to civil installations and it is still keeping inspectors out of military installations. I wish to copy the great example that the British Government have set"?

Mr. Cohen: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although progress is made step by step and the Bill is an important step forward. I support his suggestion that it should apply to military establishments as well, which would tighten up things for other countries.
Binding the Crown would also allow for independent judicial tests to establish whether the Government had acted in compliance with the legislation. That is important to ensure that Britain not only complies with this important non-proliferation measure, but is seen to comply with it, and that is a positive signal to send to the rest of the world. Conversely, not do so would send such a damaging signal to the rest of the world that we could lose many of the political benefits that strengthened safeguards could bring.
If another country alleged that Britain was not complying with the strengthened safeguards measures, how would it seem to the rest of the world if it had correctly stated that the Bill did not remove Crown immunity? That would depict this country in an unfair light. However, the remedy is simple. Standard clauses on binding the Crown appeared in legislation as diverse as the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Indeed, Crown immunity was lifted from atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston, in April 1993.
There is no reason why such a provision should not be in the Bill. In fact, I cannot understand why it has been left out. I am not a suspicious person by nature, but if the Government were to resist the inclusion of a standard clause on binding the Crown I would wonder what was behind it. I would support a Bill that bound the Crown and did not allow Crown immunity in this respect. I shall be interested in the Minister's response to that.
I applaud the Government for including the provision in clause 7. It is almost identical to the amendment that I proposed to the Chemical Weapons Bill, which made it an offence for someone knowingly or recklessly to make a false or misleading statement to an inspector. I am glad that the Government support that. It has been a long-fought battle to get such a provision in arms control legislation. I first raised the question of making it an offence to give false information to inspectors when the House debated the Bill that gave effect to the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty in 1991. My amendment to the Chemical Weapons Bill was accepted by the previous Government in 1995.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. Will he explain to the House how this provision would take effect in countries that are

not democracies? If a misleading statement were made to one of the inspectors in Iraq or in some other such undemocratic country, what sanction would be imposed against that country?

Mr. Cohen: That is an interesting point. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about, for example, the Soviet Union not complying with agreements during the cold war, although I suspect that there was non-compliance on both sides. When the Soviet Union was found to be in breach, the United States took it up with the Soviets. That is one good thing that could be done. Even then, the United States thought it better to have the Soviet Union on board for such treaties than to have the treaties wiped out. I know that that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but it is much better to have countries signed up to these treaties, which can then be strengthened in a step-by-step approach, than not to have them at all.
Opposition Members have raised the issue of searches being carried out by people of a different sex—a different gender. That is not right, and it could create problems. However, the problem could be dealt with simply. I hope that the Government will consider amending clause 4(7), which states:
No constable shall, by virtue of subsection (6)(b), search a person of the opposite sex.
It could state that "no person shall, by virtue of subsection (6)(b), search a person of the opposite sex." Such an amendment would remove the problem of a person searching someone of the opposite sex.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister accused me of being interested only in sex, but I am interested in the rights of individuals in this country. Even if the hon. Gentleman persuaded the House to change the word from "constable" to "person", it would have no effect because clause 5 would prevent any control by the House over foreign inspectors coming into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cohen: I understand that point, but the Bill will be the law of the land. If it said that a man could not search a woman, which is the obvious example, another woman would have to accompany the inspector. That is not unreasonable.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Cohen: I shall give way, but I am coming to the end of my speech.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his usual courteous manner. May I advise him carefully to think again about his suggestion? If he removes the word "constable" and replaces it with "person", he is not narrowing but widening the search to a range of other people who are not police officers, male or female, and are not qualified or trained in searching techniques. That may diminish the freedom of the individual, rather than enhance it.

Mr. Cohen: I do not think that that is so, because elsewhere in the protocol it provides that they should be proper, authorised inspectors—so I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.
This is a good, important treaty that can be used for the future, and we should build on it. The alternative is dire. None of the Opposition Members who have spoken has said what would happen if the non-proliferation treaty were weakened or got rid of—[Interruption.]I apologise to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who does not take that position. With those few remarks, I support the Bill and recommend it to the House.

Mr. David Maclean: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). That is one of the longest speeches I have heard him make in the House, but it was certainly worth listening to.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In what way can you make it possible for me to let my constituents know that the Conservative party is deliberately blocking the Bill to provide free television licences for 75-year-olds?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Maclean: I would happily let the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) participate in this debate, and he could make his points in his own way, but he has not been present for any of our discussions. He was not even present for the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, or to hear the detailed points made by Opposition Members. Fortunately for the House, and for myself, I shall be brief in this debate, because most of the main points were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and I want to save my main remarks for the BBC Bill, which we shall debate after this Bill. I do not want to tire myself out on this Bill, because I have important remarks—well, I consider them important, but the House may not—to make on that Bill, and I wish to save myself for that.
Much has changed while you were away from the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although at times you may be forgiven for thinking that not much had changed. There is now a certain consensus across the House. One has heard of the famous Rooker-Wise amendment. I look forward, with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, to the Cohen-Maclean amendments on Report, which may deal with the vexed problem of searches or seek to give the Bill more teeth and deal with the problem of the inspection of military as well as civilian installations.
It was said at the start of our discussion of this important measure that this is an historic day and that the Bill is of historic importance. I shall briefly touch on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We are having this significant debate only because my right hon. Friend and I objected to the fact that the Government tried to bounce this measure through the private Member's Bill procedure last year. If a private Member in the top 20 in the ballot had presented this Bill, it would have had a proper Second Reading, we would have had this discussion on a Friday morning, and the Bill would have proceeded apace. Attempting to bounce it through on the nod at the end of business on a Friday was not an appropriate way to

deal with important legislation that implements an international treaty, a copy of which I have in front of me, better for the purposes of information.
The Bill is historic, and we must consider whether it will make the world a safer place or whether we are deluding ourselves—and that, although the Bill and the protocol deal with crucial matters, they will nevertheless not make a jot of difference. Is it merely a gesture? If so, might that gesture persuade other countries to take a step forward and participate in nuclear non-proliferation treaties? Will it persuade them to sign up to the protocol?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard these points made many times this evening already.?

Mr. Maclean: I accept that point entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but at least you have not heard them from me before. This time, you have heard them in a different accent. Nevertheless, I will push on with other points, which I hope have not already been raised by any of my right hon. or hon. Friends. When one speaks late in a debate, there is inevitably a danger that the great points of principle have already been aired.
If this is an important Bill, we must ensure that the measures in it will make a difference to world peace. We have certain concerns about clause 5, which have already been touched on; we also have concerns about the protocol—the agreement signed by the British Government, and now awaiting ratification and implementation.
Article 4 of the protocol says that "any location" must be inspected by members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or by authorised officials of the British Government. The term "any location" is very broad, and I suspect that it will be interpreted broadly in English law. Article 5 states:
The United Kingdom shall provide the Agency with access to … Any place in a facility or part thereof in the United Kingdom designated pursuant to Article 78(a) of the Safeguards Agreement
and
Any location identified under Article 2.
That refers to article 2 of this protocol, which identifies the main nuclear installations, research facilities and organisations where one might expect to find nuclear power and nuclear material of some sort, including nuclear processing material.
Article 5.c., however, states that this can also include
Any location specified by the Agency, other than locations referred to in paragraphs a. and b. above, to carry out location-specific environmental sampling.
That widens the scope of the Bill. We may feel little concern about officers from the IAEA or other authorised officers of the United Kingdom having the right to enter places such as Sellafield, or other places involved in nuclear reprocessing or research involving nuclear material. Article 5, however, allows agency officers to enter other locations to carry out location-specific environmental sampling.
Article 6 states that the agency may carry out activities including:
For access in accordance with Article 5.c., collection of environmental samples and, in the event the results do not resolve the question or inconsistency at the location specified by the Agency


pursuant to Article 5.c. utilization at that location of visual observation, radiation detection and measurement devices, and, as agreed by the United Kingdom and, as appropriate, the Community, and the Agency, other objective measures.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is presenting his argument eloquently. Does he agree that the definition is so broad that it leaves us open not only to breaches of the Official Secrets Acts, but to industrial espionage by other countries?

Mr. Maclean: I do not want to discuss breaches of the Official Secrets Acts, because I think that they fall under clause 2. I want logically to deal first with the protocol, and then with the Bill. I am not as clear-headed as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who can speak with the Bill in one hand and the protocol in the other, and deal with both simultaneously. I think, however, that part of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to serve notices on any person giving assistance or information that would be in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
I fear that article 6 would widen access to a range of places and activities that might have nothing to do with nuclear power, nuclear energy or nuclear research, so that location-specific environmental sampling could be carried out. My only knowledge of that relates to what happened in the Lake district after the Chernobyl incident. Many people thought that it was to do with Sellafield, but it was not. Inspectors from the Environment Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to visit various sampling spots all around the area of nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl reactor and take samples. In the main, people were willing to participate and to allow the inspectors on to their land—land that was dozens of miles from Sellafield, and thousands of miles from where the incident happened. However, they had to provide access.
I can only assume, unless the Minister tells me otherwise, that the location-specific environmental sampling mentioned in the protocol actually means that. Let us suppose that the Government give the agency information about a location such as those specified in article 2. Let us suppose that they say, "We have a nuclear facility at location X." In that event, under articles 5 and 6, in order to check that material is not leaking out, or that it is the stuff that it should be—strontium 90, for instance—the agency would carry out environmental sampling at points within the vicinity of the location. It might be half a mile out, two miles out, five miles out or 50 miles out. I do not know; it is not clear.
It is obvious, however, that the experts who drafted the scientific part of the protocol have a clear idea of what location-specific environmental sampling is. I should be delighted if someone told me that I had got it wrong and told me exactly what it meant, but, unless I am challenged, I assume it means that within certain distances of certain research facilities and nuclear facilities inspectors can sample the air or the soil, or stick radioactive meters in the air, to find out whether there is any radiation about.
No doubt the agency will operate according to a set plan or a set map. That means that inspectors can say to United Kingdom citizens, "We want to monitor a nuclear facility that is five, 10, 50 or 100 miles down the road, and we want to carry out sampling from this point on your

land, on your hillside, on your mountain or in your back garden." They will then have all the powers that the protocol gives them.
Perhaps it should be possible to move to someone else's mountain or back garden—someone who may be happy to co-operate or give permission. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we have built into the protocol and the Bill powers to allow agency officers to say to British citizens who have nothing to do with the nuclear industry, nuclear research or any scientific research, "We are coming on to your land for the purposes of article 5.c. of the protocol, as implemented in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill." I, for one, would like an assurance from the Minister that I am entirely wrong, because that would help to persuade me that the Bill is not as draconian as I think it is.
I would have liked to make a number of other points about the protocol, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has covered them comprehensively, I will content myself with some that he did not make in detail. Article 11 concerns the appointment of agency officials to act as safeguards inspectors. My right hon. Friend elicited from the Minister the answer that yes, the British Government have the right of veto—if we do not like Inspector Snooks from a certain country, we can reject him.
The other point that I hope the Minister will cover in his winding-up speech is: can we do that indefinitely? Can we have a large number of vetoes? Is it open-ended? Can our veto be such that we will never accept an inspector who is appointed by a certain country? We do not care how good or honest the person is. We may be certain that he is not a spy, or espionage officer appointed by that country. We may nevertheless say that we will not take inspectors from certain countries.
It may be a small point, but it would be nice to know that, unlike with juries, we can carry on objecting to inspectors from certain countries if we have reason to suspect, irrespective of how many different inspectors they give us, that they are paid officers of the intelligence services of that member state, or have connections to their own military that we might find unacceptable.

Mr. Fabricant: May I probe my right hon. Friend a little further? Does he suspect, like me, that a perfectly honourable person from a specific country, when he returns to his country, if it is non-democratic or, furthermore, has not even signed the protocol, may be blackmailed—as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) says—or, to go further, tortured to give such information?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes some good points, which I am sure that the Minister has heard and will wish to deal with in his reply. There were allegations that one of the inspectors—in fact, the chief inspector—a United States citizen inspecting the Iraqi facilities, was improperly passing information to the United States Government. The allegations were perhaps even worse: he was working in cahoots with the CIA, or some other organisation.
Considering the circumstances of that case and the trust that I have for our American allies, I would be happy if America were clever enough to place a good operative to do that job. Nevertheless, that is probably one of the few countries that I would trust to do such a thing.
If that allegation were true, other countries and Governments might try the same ploy: designating as inspectors people who have impeccable links to their equivalent of the CIA, internal security forces, espionage or spying agencies. We wish to reserve the right—I hope that the Minister will confirm that we have it—to carry on ad nauseam rejecting inspectors from a country if we suspect that they are connected to their spy agencies.
I move to article 12 and a different point from that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst; it occurred to me as he was making his speech. These people will get visas. The article says:
The United Kingdom shall, within one month of the receipt of a request therefor, provide the designated inspector specified in the request with appropriate multiple entry/exit and/or transit visas.
It is those visas that interest me. Let us take a hypothetical case. We grant permission for an inspector to be designated. He then receives his year-long multiple entry and exit visa. He comes with the IAEA team and does his official duty. He inspects properly—there are no questions about it. He seems to be perfectly legitimate. Then he goes home to his host country, or a country where he is a citizen and whose Government appointed him to the IAEA in the first place. A month later, he comes back to the UK—shall we say in a private capacity, not on IAEA activities—but there is total freedom of movement in this country for anyone who enters it.
That person has his multiple entry and exit visas. Is he free to enter this country without telling the British Government? Is he free to come on holiday to the Lake district? Is he free to go for a sightseeing tour around Sellafield? Is he free to indulge in private activities, shall we say, and to look around, as close as he can get, research facilities and nuclear installations in this country, without wearing the official hat of the designated inspector?
We need to know. If I were trying to run a spying operation in any foreign Government, that is the sort of chap whom I would want to send to this country. The problem arises not when he comes here with an official team, not when he tells the British Government, "I am arriving within 24 hours. Please tell the people at your nuclear installations that I will inspect X, Y and Z," and not when the Government are officially informed, but when he comes back with his multiple entry and exit visas to do some private work on his own, or with the connivance of the host Government.
If the Minister says that, on every occasion, those people must notify the British Government that they have arrived in this country, I will be pleased. I cannot see it anywhere in the legislation. It is not in the protocol. Perhaps it is built into some operating instructions that we do not have before us tonight. If that is not the case, I should like amendments in Committee or on Report saying that any of the people who have been designated as inspectors must tell the host Government on any occasion that they come to this country. That is the only way in which we can ensure that, if there are any inspectors of whom we are slightly suspicious, our security services can be notified, so that those people can be kept under proper observation, if we think that they are doing, shall we say, freebies.
As I say, I have concerns about other provisions of the protocol, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, in his customary thorough manner, has explored them in considerable detail, so I will not need to go down that route.
It is legitimate to allude to the countries that have signed up to the protocol already. We are being urged to pass the Bill rapidly, so that Britain can carry out its obligations. It has been pointed out—I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not consider it tedious repetition to say it—that the list is not very great.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to remind the House of those people who have and have not signed, that point has been dealt with at least twice.

Mr. Maclean: That is why I was not going to point out the minor states that have signed the protocol. Nevertheless, the House needs to be reminded that Britain would be in a unique environment if it joined the other eight. That is a tiny handful out of the 193 countries of the UN that have not implemented the protocol. That takes us back to the key issue of principle relating to the Bill: is it worth while voting for the Bill today, and will it make a difference?
It has been said that this is an historic opportunity. I submit that the end of the cold war provided an historic opportunity to advance the cause of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. As Labour Members have said, the possibility of realising the opportunity to have less proliferation of nuclear weapons depends significantly on verification and standards. To that end, we have this protocol, and the IAEA safeguard system has been strengthened considerably since 1991, when the Berlin wall fell. Moreover, events in Iraq demonstrated the limitations of the systems that we then had in place. When we discovered Iraq's clandestine weapons development activities, it gave us many lessons for the future. I think that that is the direct forebear of this protocol.
Today, I have not heard one hon. Member on either side of the House seriously criticise the IAEA safeguards, which are acknowledged to be a credible means by which the international community can be assured that nuclear materials and nuclear facilities are being used exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I think that the point that my hon. Friend wishes to make is that people can be assured by the safeguards only if countries have signed up to them.

Mr. Fabricant: I simply wonder whether my right hon. Friend was persuaded by the argument so forcefully made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) that if we singlehandedly and—I almost hesitate to use this word in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker—unilaterally decide to sign the protocol, the rest of the world will sign it, too?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It would be naive for anyone to believe that that would happen. However, I do not accuse the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead of naivety—he simply has a confidence in certain countries that I do not share, and believes that Britain can set an example. Although I accept that Britain can set an example in many spheres, I do not believe that merely setting an example on the protocol will cause the rest of the world to rush in behind us. Fundamental interests are at stake.
We can sign protocols and treaties when we are already doing the right things and our fundamental interests would not be affected by signing them. However, we have refused to sign many treaties when we thought that a signature would fundamentally affect our interests. That is one reason why the United Kingdom—under all Governments, including the current one—will not sign up to certain military nuclear treaties that we think could seriously endanger the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. We do not want any interference with that. I do not, however, want to address that issue. I am merely making the point that countries may sign up to things that do not matter, and that they will not always sign up to things that matter to them.
We can sign up to the protocol because it does not seriously affect our military capability. Indeed, as the protocol does not apply to the military, it could not seriously affect the military; nor does it seriously affect our nuclear capability. Clause 3 provides many more regulations and much more bureaucracy and claptrap, but the protocol will not close down any British nuclear research facility. Therefore, the Government can happily sign up to it, wear their heart on their sleeve and show that we are good guys.
Safeguards on verification and other safeguards alone cannot prevent states from acquiring nuclear material, facilities or technology. Neither can they alone ensure the physical protection of nuclear materials or facilities. However, they can—if everyone signs up to them—act as an early warning mechanism. They are the trigger that sets in motion other responses by the international community. That basic principle brings into focus the reality that the safeguard system is merely one component, albeit—as we have been saying in the debate—an important component of the global non-proliferation regime.
The essential elements of the non-proliferation regime—we are being asked to add another element to it today—have long been recognised to include: global, regional and bilateral agreement in accordance with which states commit themselves not to manufacture or possess nuclear weapons; export controls on the supply of nuclear and nuclear-related materials, technology and equipment; the convention and guidelines aimed at ensuring the physical protection of nuclear material and facilities; accelerated action towards nuclear disarmament, of course; and appropriate arrangements for global and regional security.
Although much has been achieved in putting in place those components—which together constitute the rather complex mosaic of the global non-proliferation regime—the forthcoming non-proliferation treaty review conference is likely to highlight how further progress is required. That fact tends to put this protocol into context, and helps us to come to conclusions on the Bill. Specifically, the principles of, and objectives for, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament—which are part of the package of decisions that accompanied the agreement on the NPT's indefinite extension, in 1995—will certainly draw attention to the commitments that need to be fulfilled.
As Labour Members have said today, although safeguards have evolved progressively since their inception, until recently, the IAEA safeguards system

focused mainly on nuclear material and activities declared by the state. This protocol is, of course, the result of our recognition that an effective verification regime must also focus on possible undeclared material and activities. That has been a lacuna in our legislation for some considerable time.
In February 1992, the IAEA board of governors reaffirmed the agency's right to verify the correctness and completeness of the nuclear material declarations made by states. Some strengthening measures were introduced within existing IAEA members, but other key elements envisaged for the strengthened system required additional legal authority. In May 1997, the IAEA board approved a model additional protocol, which conferred on the agency additional legal authority to implement further strengthening measures. That has evolved into the protocol that we are discussing, under which states are required to provide the agency with an expanded declaration that contains information covering all aspects of their nuclear and nuclear fuel cycle activities, but relating only to civil installations, not military ones.
The agency's broader access rights are, to a large extent, linked to confirming or clarifying particular aspects of the information provided. Whereas access was previously limited to certain strategic plants in declared facilities, under the new protocol a state is required to provide access to any place on a nuclear site and to other locations—that is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was concerned about—where nuclear material is or may be present. The state is required to provide access to all locations that are or could be engaged in nuclear fuel cycle-related activities and, in cases in which that may not be possible, to make every reasonable effort to satisfy agency requirements without delay through other means.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the really bothersome aspect of that is that it appears that all decisions on such matters rest with the agency? Throughout the protocol and the Bill, what is regarded as a prime location or an adjacent location is a matter for the discretion of the agency and its inspectors. That appears again and again to give them unlimited scope in their decision as to where they go to invade—and, arguably, to violate—the privacy of hitherto safe locations.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. I do not criticise the present Government, because the situation would be the same if the Conservatives were in power, but when Britain implements an international obligation, we always put gold knobs and bells on. The British Government are required to send information to the agency. In clauses 2 and 3, the Government and parliamentary draftsmen have ensured that under no circumstances will Britain ever be likely to be accused of missing out a single place where someone may be carrying out the tiniest bit of research that might have relevance to the nuclear industry. I suspect that British Telecom would be notified to the IAEA if it reverted to the old phones that had radioactive dials, as would a manufacturer of luminous watches, because of the radioactivity in the products or the research for them. The British Government never want to be accused of failing to implement their obligations.
Clause 2 says:
The Secretary of State may serve a notice on any person requiring him to give the Secretary of State information, or information of a description, specified in the notice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a Committee debate. It is not right to go into such detail.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry that I began to do so. I should not let my hon. Friends lead me astray into that detail. We shall have to spend considerable time in Committee looking at the detail of clauses 2 and 3.

Mr. Fabricant: Given the broader picture that my right hon. Friend has painted, is he aware that there will be costs for manufacturing companies as a result of the Bill's scope and the sort of companies that can be investigated under its terms? Has he noticed whether there has been any compliance cost analysis?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his own way. I shall not go into the details of clauses 2 and 3, but the House will see the space that they take up in the Bill. The Government have built in every catch-all provision that they can to ensure that they have the details of every company, business or person engaged in research on anything nuclear. That information will then be passed on to the agency.

Mr. Bercow: Given the extent of the powers that the Bill confers upon agency investigators and the fact, which will not have escaped you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have been debating the Bill for precisely 270 minutes, it is imperative that the Minister who replies should deal in detail with the concern of many of us that aggrieved individuals should have redress against abuse of power, the opportunity for which is provided deliberately or inadvertently by the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right but slightly ahead of me. I intended to take up that point when I turned my attention to the Bill and drew attention to the lack of a redress system for those who have been aggrieved. I do not need to deal any more with the protocol because my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst dealt with it extensively.
As I pass on to the Bill, I wish merely to point out that although the Government have signed the protocol and wish to ratify it and bring it into law, we must not think that we have made a marvellous step forward. I do not think that we have, because many challenges still remain. For example, many states that are party to the non-proliferation group have yet to conclude safeguard agreements with the agency. There may be no harm in Britain being one of the few countries to have done so, but in five years' time there may be an opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on these matters, and we may find that Britain is still No. 9 and that no other state has signed up.
It would be a welcome development if some of the 50 other NPG states, without the safeguard agreement in force, were to review the run-up to the April conference at the end of this week. I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will attend the April 2000 review conference, and I hope that the House will be told that having gone there, aiming to clutch the

Nuclear Safeguards Act in his hand—I suspect that we shall not be able to make it an Act by Easter, but instead carrying the Bill—he will say, "We have completed Second Reading and we are now in Committee, and ratification will take place shortly." How many other Ministers from the 50 states that have failed to make progress will be able to make a similar report?
Before we judge the Bill, we want an estimate of how many other states will sign up. I do not wish to discuss individual countries or to say that we can now sleep safely in our beds because the Pope has signed up and we shall not be nuked by the Vatican, which is reassuring. However, we are entitled to know from the Minister whether the Government expect that there will be many other states following the lead that he wishes the British Government to give.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has made a new point, which must be something of a record in the debate. He is introducing an important angle. We have been talking in terms of what the Government will want to take to the April conference. We have the unseemly spectacle of the Minister wanting to rush the proposed legislation through the House. My right hon. Friend must be correct: if we are to give the Bill a Second Reading, we should in Committee have knowledge of whether progress has been made at the international forum so that we can make a judgment about completion of the Bill's consideration. It may be that we would want to pause on Third Reading if we were not satisfied that progress was being made at great international conferences.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend, in his usual highly intelligent and erudite way, has made an exceptionally good point. One of the reassurances that I would like to hear from the Minister tonight is that he will delay going into Committee until after Easter. He would only lose one Committee session and it would not jeopardise the Bill. Or the Bill could go into Committee and the Minister could table a sittings motion for the Committee to proceed after Easter, at which point we could have a report from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the progress that he made at the April 2000 review conference. He could also give us a list of the other countries which attended clutching their own Bills.

Mr. Bercow: Am I right in thinking that the Minister, who has been somewhat lonely on the Front Bench in the past few hours, will only by leave of the House have the opportunity to speak for a second time in replying to the debate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wishes to brandish aloft at an international conference a piece of paper that testifies to the success of his Government in securing early passage of the provisions in the protocols, the least that he could do in courtesy to the House would be to offer to wind up this debate? The fact that he is not even attending our proceedings is further naked evidence of the contempt in which Ministers of this Government hold this elected House.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point in his own way. It is a point that needs repetition, but I make no accusation against the Minister who is present. He is exceptionally courteous. Indeed, I hope that the Government have not abandoned the tradition of


ensuring that, if a Minister has to be present in the Chamber all day, another Minister
comes in to allow him to have a break for some beans on toast. The Minister has not had the chance for refreshment all day, and that is an unfair burden on any Minister.
With regard to the substance of my hon. Friend's remarks, I cannot think of any right hon. or hon. Friend who would object to the Minister seeking the leave of the House to reply to the debate. He is a courteous Minister and I would much prefer to hear his reply than that of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. No one on the Opposition Benches would object to the Minister seeking the leave of the House to speak again.
I turn now to the Bill itself. We need an indication of the extent of the regulations that will be required under clause 3, which will give the Secretary of State power to
make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description and to give supplementary particulars.
If I read that correctly, it means that the Secretary of State will make regulations concerning certain persons and the first thing that they will have to do is to confirm that they are the people whom the regulations are about, so that the Government know that they made the regulations broad enough.
Clause 3 is wide ranging, as is clause 2, and the Government should indicate what regulations they have in mind. I recall a time, not so long ago, when what is almost a Henry VIII measure such as this would not have got through the House, or past the other place, unless the Government produced in advance the draft regulations that they intended to make. I remember several Bills that I piloted through the House that were held up until Home Office officials had drafted in advance all the regulations that we could possible conceive of making, because the Opposition and the other place demanded to see the pig in the poke.

Dr. Howells: Which regulations is the right hon. Gentleman referring to? Draft regulations under clause 3 were put into the Library on 29 November last year. They set out what it is envisaged will be required from companies under that clause.

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to be corrected on that and apologise for suggesting that that had not been done. The extensive material that I collected from the Library did not contain them, so I assumed that the Library did not have them. If the regulations are comprehensive and make clear what the Government want, that is excellent. I withdraw my remarks without hesitation.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend should not be too apologetic. Sackcloth and ashes are not required. The Minister will recall an intervention that I made in the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) to inquire whether the regulations would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. The Minister intervened on him with a reference to his own handwriting. Does my right hon. Friend think that we should look to the negative procedure for the regulations, or to the affirmative?

Mr. Maclean: That is a good point. I assumed that the Minister would have mentioned that, if he knew about the

regulations when he said that he did. However, there is no harm in apologising when one is wrong, and I was wrong about the regulations. I wish other Departments could be as forthcoming as his has been in producing draft regulations under the Bill.
Clause 4(5) states:
The powers of an authorised officer who enters premises under the authority of a warrant under this section include power—
(a) to take with him such other persons and such equipment as appear to him to be necessary.
I can understand that authorised officers might want to take with them scientific and technical help, or equipment that Sherpas are required to carry. However, subsection (6) of what I think is a permissive clause talks of
A constable who enters premises under the authority of a warrant.
Authorised officers may have power to take whatever people they choose with them, but will constables have to comply? An authorised officer with a warrant to enter a premises may decide to take a couple of bobbies with him because he fears difficulty, or merely for the sake of appearances. When he tells the relevant chief constable that he wants officers to accompany him, do the police have the right to refuse? If the chief constable agrees, will the force be recompensed for the officers' time?
Police provision for football matches is always recompensed, as it is additional, unusual expenditure. However, the police are worried about the burdens that are placed on them, and about the vicious Government funding cuts that have caused bobby numbers to fall. Will the chief constable of my county, Cumbria, now say that he will have to close more rural police stations and take more bobbies off the beat because his officers have been summoned by authorised officers to accompany certain persons into nuclear installations or research facilities?
Clause 8 deals with the search provision, and the Minister should get his officials to look at it again. I cannot remember the rules introduced by the previous Government on searches, but they were introduced under legislation relating to the transfer of prisoners. I seem to recall that searches range from removing a person's hat or coat to removing all his or her clothing. The severest form of search is the intimate body search by police service doctors.
The Government could save themselves a problem if they specified what sort of search they mean. I assumed that it was, as with security searches at airports, a case of patting the body without asking people to remove any more clothing than a coat—without going into grubby details.
Clause 5, by far the most contentious in the Bill, deals with the powers of inspectors to come into this country and go into any private property without a warrant. Under clause 4, a warrant must be granted before British inspectors can enter British property. When we referred to foreign inspectors invading private British property, the Minister pulled us up and told us not to be disparaging about the inspectors—some of whom are British—who have an excellent reputation. I agree entirely. I have no criticism of the inspectors in the British nuclear industry or the agency officers who have been doing such work since 1946 or 1956. They have a long-standing and noble reputation of proper, thorough, decent inspection. However, our fundamental freedoms existed even before those inspectors. So, although I have no criticism of the inspectors who may enter our property, it is nevertheless


legitimate to challenge them, along with police constables, Customs and Excise officers, or any other officers who seek extraordinary rights to invade our fundamental freedoms.
The Committee considering the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill has just ended. It dealt with clauses giving draconian powers to the security service, the special intelligence service, Customs and Excise, MI5, the fisheries inspector, the Department of Health dodgy medicines inspector—even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food egg inspector, as we discovered by accident one day. The Committee regularised their draconian powers to undertake covert surveillance, directed surveillance and, for some of the top security agencies of the state, electronic surveillance such as tapping e-mails. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), was extremely courteous, and meticulous in assuring the Committee that the powers for people to enter private property and bag all mail and correspondence were necessary only because there were serious issues at stake. We were told that the Home Secretary could be trusted because we could always ensure that, whenever he granted a warrant, it would be done properly, and there would be a judicial committee to check on it.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, but I do not want to stray down this road because I would be on the borderline of order. Under that Bill, the powers given to the security services and the police are under warrant, and the Home Secretary has to answer for every time that they get it wrong. I cite that merely as a contrast to the powers in clause 5.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend almost answers my question. Is not the crux of the matter that MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the other agencies are answerable, directly or indirectly, to Parliament, whereas the IAEA is not?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. Why do we bother having the powers in clause 4? It provides an elaborate procedure, under which British officers will have to seek a warrant and obtain judicial approval. The procedure will be the same as for any other police officers getting a warrant before going on to private property, carrying out inspections or arresting people. We have even built in those powers for MI5, MI6, Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the national crime squad, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other chief constables. We have built an elaborate procedure, ending with scrutiny by an independent judicial committee. Clause 4 almost emulates that, while clause 5 does not build in any safeguards.
I see the Minister's difficulty. The Government have signed up to a protocol, and the Bill must implement it. If we try to build safeguards into clause 5, that will fly in the face of the protocol of the treaty. Under the protocol, we have signed away our rights by allowing inspectors to come into this country and go on to private property without necessarily getting a judicial warrant. I understand why clause 5 must implement that in law.
It is not good that the Bill has two inconsistent clauses. British inspectors must get a warrant, but foreign inspectors—who may include British inspectors—can inspect without scrutiny.
Clause 5(5) states that a constable "may" give such assistance as an inspector may request. Does that really mean "shall"? We need to know. The phrasing suggests that the constable may not—he or she may refuse. There is a permissive power for the constable to refuse.
If, during an inspection, a constable refuses to do something that the inspector asks him to do, and the person is then charged with wilfully obstructing an inspector, does the person have a defence because the constable did not back up the agency inspector? Would that be an offence? For example, an agency inspector visits a facility accompanied by a British bobby, and the person concerned refuses to do what the inspector demands. The British bobby suggests that the person does not refuse, and the inspector then orders the British officer to compel the person to comply.

Dr. Howells: If a warrant says that a constable must be present, the police service would have to provide a PC unless there were exceptional circumstances for justifying a refusal. A constable would be expected to use his own judgment about what he should do, subject to any conditions in the warrant. However, he would be expected to provide whatever assistance was appropriate, if so requested by an authorised officer.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister for taking us forward. If the warrant specifies that a constable should be present, the police must provide an officer. However, if the warrant does not specify that, the police can refuse.

Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether the Minister has been as helpful as he had wished. If a warrant is issued, as the Minister said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) are falling into the trap about which I warned them earlier. These are Committee points and ought not to be pursued.

Mr. Maclean: I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but should be grateful if the Minister would reconsider clause 5(5) and (7). I shall wish to ask in Committee what would happen if an agency inspector ordered something and a British bobby thought it contrary to British law or Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rules. The bobby might be asked to take illegal fingerprints or samples, and might refuse to do so. The person who had refused to comply, because a police officer had thought that compliance was wrong, could then be charged with having failed to co-operate with an agency inspector. That person might be charged with an offence, which the police did not consider to be an offence, merely on the say-so of the agency inspector.
I wish to turn to information held electronically. I have spent much time discussing encryption over the past few weeks in the Standing Committee on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Clause 4(5)(c) of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill creates a power for an authorised officer to
require any information which is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which he can read and copy it.


Let us suppose that the information is encrypted, and that the person who holds it claims to have lost his key. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, that person will receive an automatic two-year sentence for not producing the encrypted material—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is repeating points that he has told us he made in Standing Committee. Clearly, by his own admission, those are Committee points, and I ask him to move on.

Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I was not aware of having mentioned encryption previously. I thought that I was on safe ground as I could not recall anyone having mentioned it.
My other points are points of detail, and I need not trouble the House with them tonight.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is an expert on the big picture. Given the considerable anxieties expressed about the disparity between clauses 4 and 5, it would be helpful if the Minister told us how he would respond if the House did not approve the Bill's Second Reading. In that eventuality, would he talk to his international colleagues and produce a revised Bill, or would he abandon the project altogether?

Mr. Maclean: That is a valid question. I do not oppose the Bill; I do not think that any of my hon. Friends does either. However, we have deep concerns about clause 5 because we do not like to give draconian powers, without review or judicial oversight, to inspectors of any nature. I should not want to give those powers to my local VAT inspector, never mind to international inspectors of any agency.
I do not oppose the Bill, but I challenge the Government to prove that it is essential and will make a great difference. It has about it the aura of a gesture, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said. If it were vital to nuclear non-proliferation, the Government would have introduced it themselves in 1997, soon after they were elected. They could have introduced it in 1998, but instead it was tacked on to the end of the Order Paper on a Friday morning when we were dealing with important private Member's Bills. My right hon. Friend or I objected to it because we assumed that it was a measure of no consequence. We thought that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) was trying to bounce through a Bill that he had dreamt up off the top of his head, and that that would have been an abuse of the procedures of the House. Today, we have heard the Minister say that it is vital—

Dr. Julian Lewis: Historic.

Mr. Maclean: Indeed, the Government say that it is an historic measure that will make a great difference. If it would make a difference now, surely it would have made a bigger one two years ago. Perhaps if it had been introduced then as a Government measure, more than eight countries—the House knows which ones, and I shall not recite the list again—would have signed up to the protocol.
If we are to make the gesture of passing the Bill, and if Britain intends to signify to the rest of the world how good it is, we must bear in mind that it applies only to civil activities, not defence-related ones. We have rightly said to IAEA inspectors and to other countries in the protocol, "You can draw up this protocol, chums, and we can all go to the international review in April and congratulate ourselves on passing it, but your inspectors can keep their noses out of our military nuclear facilities. We are not having any foreign inspectors wandering around them. We are not signing up to any of that.
"
I defend the Government for that attitude—just as I defended the previous Government and shall defend any future Government who say that, in the world in which we live, our military nuclear capability is vital to the security and peace of our nation. I trust our British inspectors to ensure that such matters are properly carried out.
However, despite the fact that the Government will not give the protocol any remit over military establishments, we should not pat ourselves too much on the back, because inspectors from foreign countries can wander around all our other nuclear facilities. They can go into all the little labs in Cambridge and elsewhere—inspecting, detecting and picking up paperwork on all the minutiae of civil nuclear power—while we say how good, open and up-front we are and that the rest of the world should follow our lead.
The Gaddafis of this world—the Libyas, Iraqs, Indias, Pakistans and all the other countries that might have a nuclear capability—will not be persuaded by countries that say, "Come and inspect all our civil nuclear establishments, but keep your noses out of our military ones." We are no more moral than they are, but I am happy with our position. I should not like the Government to extend the Bill's provisions to our military nuclear facilities.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in the debate. He rightly referred to the provenance of the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members who take seriously the principles of our democratic system will be concerned by the fact that the measure started out as a private Member's Bill. The Government made a mistake by introducing it in that way; they now realise that it would have been better to have presented it as a Government Bill. Private Members' Bill should be reserved for issues such as hedgerows, on which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions might be anxious to introduce a measure that would not be appropriate as main Government business.
However, the debate has permitted us to have the pleasure of the company of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): the Minister is a most assiduous Member. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear his opening speech, or his explanation as to why the Government were unable to make a statement to the House on car competition policy. I pay tribute to his belief in the House and to the fact that he has listened attentively to all the arguments in the debate.

Mr. Bercow: May I echo my hon. Friend's tribute? The Minister is liked and admired on both sides of


the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As the Minister will have the burden of securing the Bill's passage, would it not be appropriate if he, rather than the significantly less popular Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were to have the pleasure of attending the celebrated international conference?

Mr. Howarth: Enough of that—we have done the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs quite enough harm already. I like him enough not to want to inflict further damage. Although I missed his opening remarks, I was able to study the words of Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who moved the Bill's Second Reading in the other place last November.
During that debate, a noble Lord described the powers in the Bill as draconian. Furthermore, he said:
One of those whose advice I took on the Bill said: "We are all in favour of the most draconian measures to protect the nuclear non-proliferation treaty".
That was said not by a Conservative peer but by Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. He is a professor of international relations at the London school of economics and a former director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. I make that point to demonstrate that he has made a lifetime study of international affairs, and he acknowledges that the powers conferred on authorities in the Bill are draconian.

Mr. Keetch: I think that my noble Friend said that although he considered the powers draconian, he thought the cause worthy of such powers. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent my noble Friend by suggesting that he was critical of the powers.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not see in the noble Lord's remarks precisely where he said that he accepted the need for these draconian powers. He said:
I understand that it is the priority of all the members of Euratom to ratify as soon as possible. This requires all members to ensure that they have amended their domestic legislation appropriately.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 782.]
I do not want to suggest that the noble Lord was not conscious that the powers were draconian. In so far as there was no Division in the other place, one might be entitled to assume that he accepted the need for them and did not think that they were so draconian that they warranted his voting against Second Reading.
It is important that we understand that we are being asked to vote for the Bill tonight because of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I understand that the Bill is a means by which non-nuclear weapons states can be policed to ensure that they are not using civil nuclear programmes clandestinely to develop nuclear weapons and that they are not receiving support from nuclear weapons states.
That prompts the question of why, of the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty—which also include the United States, France, Russia and China—we should be required to expose our domestic civil nuclear programme to the arrangements that are being introduced principally to deal with rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea, which have been mentioned. Today we are faced with the historic prospect of a meeting between North and South Korea, and it may be that even North Korea will come

into line. The Bill provides draconian powers of access to private sector companies and their civil nuclear programmes to deal with rogue states, and it is a substantial hammer to crack that particular nut.
Clauses 2 and 5 are the key parts of the Bill. Clause 2 provides the initial powers and details of the information that may be required from private sector companies. Extensive powers—

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.

Question put,That the Question be now put:—

The House divided:Ayes 219, Noes 13.

Division No. 156]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Ainger, Nick



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dawson, Hilton


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atkins, Charlotte
Dismore, Andrew


Baker, Norman
Dobbin, Jim


Banks, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Beard, Nigel
Dowd, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Drew, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Breed, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burnett, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hancock, Mike


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harris, Dr Evan


Clapham, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr Kim


Coleman, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan


Colman, Tony
Hurst, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cotter, Brian
Jenkins, Brian


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Crausby, David
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cummings, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keetch, Paul


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)






Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooney, Terry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roy, Frank


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruane, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruddock, Joan


Lepper, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Livsey, Richard
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Love, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Singh, Marsha


McCabe, Steve
Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


McWalter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Maxton, John
Stunell, Andrew


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron Gillian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michie Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Mitchell Austin
Touhig, Don



Truswell, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moore, Michael
Turner Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tyler, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Vis, Dr Rudi


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Watts, David


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Webb, Steve


Naysmith, Dr Doug
White, Brian


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


O'Hara, Eddie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Öpik, Lembit
Willis, Phil


Pendry, Tom
Wills, Michael


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L
Wood, Mike


Pollard, Kerry
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prosser, Gwyn
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Rammell, Bill
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paterson, Owen



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Gill, Christopher
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Edward Leigh and



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Speaker: Would the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby? An inordinate amount of time is being taken there; hon. Members should be through by now.

The House having divided:Ayes 215, Noes 7.

Division No. 157]
[9.44 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Ainger, Nick
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Atkins, Charlotte
Fyfe, Maria


Baker, Norman
Gapes, Mike


Banks, Tony
Gardiner, Barry


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Beard, Nigel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bennett, Andrew F
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Best, Harold
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Betts, Clive
Grogan, John


Borrow, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Breed, Colin
Hancock, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hanson, David


Browne, Desmond
Harris, Dr Evan


Buck, Ms Karen
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Burden, Richard
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burgon, Colin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Burnett, John
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hopkins, Kelvin



Howells, Dr Kim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hurst, Alan


Cann, Jamie
Iddon, Dr Brian


Casale, Roger
Jenkins, Brian


Caton, Martin
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Clwyd, Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Iain
Keetch, Paul


Colman, Tony
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Connarty, Michael
Khabra, Piara S


Cotter, Brian
Kidney, David


Cousins, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cox, Tom
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Crausby, David
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cummings, John
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Lepper, David


Dalyell, Tam
Levitt, Tom


Darvill, Keith
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Linton, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Llwyd, Elfyn



Love, Andrew


Dawson, Hilton
McAvoy, Thomas


Dean, Mrs Janet
McCabe, Steve


Dismore, Andrew
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dobbin, Jim
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Doran, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Dowd, Jim
McNulty, Tony


Drew, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McWalter, Tony


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McWilliam, John






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moore, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mountford, Kali
Stunell, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



O'Hara, Eddie
Touhig, Don


Öpik, Lembit
Truswell, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pope, Greg
Tyler, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
Webb, Steve


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rendel, David
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Willis, Phil


Roy, Frank
Wills, Michael


Ruane, Chris
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Wood, Mike


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Worthington, Tony


Salter, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Gill, Christopher
Wilshire, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Edward Leigh and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will know, the Order Paper states that the debate on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill
may continue until 10.00 p.m.
Have you ever known an occasion on which the Government have closured their own Bill at 9.30 pm, just as the winding-up speeches were about to start, when the debate could have continued until 10 pm?

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You must be aware, because you were in the Chair at the time, that the closure was inexplicably moved before the Minister had had an opportunity to reply to

the debate. The Minister was courteous and assiduous enough to be present throughout the debate, taking notes and participating. I had the impression that he wanted very much to reply. How could the closure motion be moved by the Minister's own side before he had had any chance to reply to the debate?

Madam Speaker: I noticed that a number of Opposition Members spoke for a considerable time. I have always believed that the Opposition must have their say and they certainly did so, according to the list today.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]


The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Speaker: May I remind the Tellers that it is their duty to report the Division results as soon as possible? That means without delay.
Serjeant at Arms, will you go to the No Lobby to see that the passages are unimpeded and that Members are coming through without any delay?

The House having divided:Ayes 211, Noes 8.

Division No. 158]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Crausby, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Baker, Norman
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barron, Kevin
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benton, Joe



Bermingham, Gerald
Dawson, Hilton


Betts, Clive
Dismore, Andrew


Borrow, David
Dobbin, Jim


Breed, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Burnett, John
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)
Flynn, Paul



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Gardiner, Barry


Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coleman, Iain
Hancock, Mike


Colman, Tony
Hanson, David


Connarty, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Cotter, Brian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)






Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hepburn, Stephen
McFall, John


Hope, Phil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hopkins, Kelvin
McNamara, Kevin


Howells, Dr Kim
McNulty, Tony


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hurst, Alan
McWalter, Tony


Iddon, Dr Brian
McWilliam, John


Jenkins, Brian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Maxton, John



Meale, Alan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Merron, Gillian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Miller, Andrew


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mitchell, Austin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Moffatt, Laura


Keetch, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Moore, Michael


Khabra, Piara S
Moran, Ms Margaret


Kidney, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Mountford, Kali


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Mullin, Chris


Kirkwood, Archy
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Lepper, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Leslie, Christopher
O'Hara, Eddie


Levitt, Tom
O'Neill, Martin


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Öpik, Lembit


Linton, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Livsey, Richard
Pickthall, Colin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pike, Peter L


Llwyd, Elfyn
Pollard, Kerry


Love, Andrew
Pope, Greg


McAvoy, Thomas
Pound, Stephen


McCabe, Steve
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)





Prosser, Gwyn
Stunell, Andrew


Rammell, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rapson, Syd
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rendel, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Savidge, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Sawford Phil
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N



Webb, Steve


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
White, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wood, Mike


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. David Wilshire and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg, at last, to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I trust that we shall not witness on this Bill any of the filibustering, delaying, obfuscatory nonsense that we had on the previous Bill.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the occupant of the Chair have allowed filibustering speeches, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested? Is it not an insult to the occupant of the Chair to suggest that filibustering speeches were going on?

Madam Speaker: I doubt whether the Chair would have allowed filibustering, although the Chair did allow very long speeches in the previous debate.

Mr. Smith: I know an overlong speech when I see one, Madam Speaker. I warn Conservative Members that if they hold up this fair and sensible measure, they will have a lot to answer for to their constituents over the next few months.

Mr. David Wilshire: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should not even consider or debate the issue?

Mr. Smith: I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting that the Bill should be sensibly debated, rather than discussed in the silly fashion that was characteristic of some of the speeches in the previous debate.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement of November 1999 that from this autumn everyone aged 75 or over would receive his or her television licence free of charge. As I announced on 21 February, the concession will come into force on 1 November this year.
The Government are introducing free television licences for people over 75 in recognition of the special role that television plays in the lives of many older pensioners. With advancing age, people are much more likely to be housebound or socially isolated. For many in that age group, television becomes the main source of information and entertainment— people's window on the world.
Older pensioners are also more likely to be on low incomes. Nearly 50 per cent. of the households that will benefit from the concession are in the bottom three income bands. By providing free television licences for people aged 75 or over, we shall free well over 3 million households, including some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community, from a sizeable household bill.
Having decided to introduce this concession, our concern is to ensure that it is implemented as efficiently as possible, and with the least possible inconvenience to the people it is designed to help. Thus the Wireless

Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which came into force on 1 April, include provisions enabling a person who will have attained the age of 75 years before 1 November this year and who needs to renew their licence before that date, to obtain a short-term licence, so that they pay only for the period up to the start of the concession. From 1 November onwards, anyone who will turn 75 less than 12 months after their television licence is due for renewal will likewise be able to purchase a short-term licence. People whose licence extends beyond 1 November, or subsequently beyond their 75th birthday, will be entitled to a refund of full unexpired months after that date.
We have given careful thought to the procedures for claiming the free television licence. The estimated cost of free licences will be £344 million in 2000–01, with an additional £24.3 million in administrative costs. These costs will be borne from public funds. The Government therefore have a duty to the taxpayer both to ensure that free licences are issued only to those who are entitled to them and that they are issued in the most cost-effective manner.
It is important that we remind ourselves of the intention of the concession, which is to assist the over-75s with access to television services. We are therefore providing free television licences for people aged 75 or over for their principal residence. It is not the intention that a person aged over 75 should be able to obtain multiple free licences to cover the addresses of younger friends and relatives—although I note that at least one national newspaper has already suggested that they may wish to do so. Nor is it the intention that a couple both of whom are aged 75 or over should be able to obtain a second free licence for a second address. We have no reason to believe that significant numbers of people over 75, or their families, will try to take advantage of the system in these ways

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome in broad principle what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, but what about a 75-year-old or a couple aged 75 or over who are living with a much younger family? Will the whole family enjoy a free licence?

Mr. Smith: Yes, the whole family will because that is a household with someone aged over 75 in it.
The administration of the scheme must incorporate sensible precautions to limit the concession to those for whom it is intended and to safeguard public funds. On the other hand, we do not wish to impose unnecessary burdens on genuine claimants. Given those requirements and after careful consideration, we have concluded that much the most efficient way to operate this concession is for the Department of Social Security and, in Northern Ireland, the Department for Social Development to make available to the BBC as licensing authorities, certain limited information about people who are, or will shortly become, eligible for the concession. Given that, in practice, the work of administering the television licensing system is performed by a number of sub-contractors acting as agents for the BBC, it is also necessary for that information to be made available to third parties who are providing such services to the BBC under contract or by some other arrangement. That information will be used to set up a database, against which applications for free licences, short-term licences


and claims for refunds on unexpired licences can be checked. That will enable the BBC to check the information supplied by applicants against that held by the Department of Social Security or the Department for Social Development, to help to verify entitlement.
The Bill is required to authorise the disclosure of such information. Clause 1 will give the Secretary of State—in practice the Department of Social Security—and, in Northern Ireland, the Department for Social Development, the legal authority that they currently lack to supply information of prescribed kinds to the BBC.
We intend to use the order-making power in the Bill to prescribe only a narrow range of information which can be supplied to the BBC—namely the age, date of birth, address and national insurance number of persons aged 74 or over. Supplying information on persons aged 74 will ensure that the information is already available to the BBC at the time a person attains the age of eligibility. It is intended that an order under the Bill should also enable the DSS and the Department for Social Development to disclose to the BBC the fact that such a person has died.

Mr. David Maclean: As that is a vital point and people may be concerned that too much information may be handed over to a commercial company outside the Department, will the Secretary of State consider putting on the face of the Bill the undertaking that only the age, date of birth, address and national insurance number will be supplied? That might reassure people as to the contents of the regulations that will be made in due course.

Mr. Smith: The answer to that question is no, although I will of course consider the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I do not believe that it is necessary, given the clear assurances that I have given about the manner in which we intend to proceed. Moreover, the limited purposes for which the information is being transferred are specifically inscribed in the Bill, which answers the legitimate concerns that people may have about the transfer of information.

Mr. John Bercow: On the subject of disclosure of information and the claims of personal privacy, what does the Secretary of State have to say to my constituent Mr. David Bradnack of 47 Thame road, Haddenham, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, who has lived in the same house for 32 years and who does not possess a television licence and does not want one, but who categorically refuses to sign a form saying that he does not possess such a licence or offering reasons why? Is it right and proper that he should so far this year have been troubled by the licensing authority on no fewer than six occasions to provide information that he has already made clear he does not intend to divulge?

Mr. Smith: That case has no relevance to the Bill. However, I am familiar with the case because the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it to me before. All his constituent needs to do is to state clearly to the licensing authorities that he does not possess a television, and that should be the end of the matter.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Worrying though the matter raised by the hon. Member

for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may be, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the person involved had a halfway useful Member of Parliament, the problem could have been cleared up a long time ago?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that, although the House can legislate for some things, geography is a bit more difficult.
The Government well understand that some hon. Members who support the proposals for free television licences for people over 75 will be concerned about the privacy and data protection implications of the disclosure to an outside body of information of this kind, which is held by Government Departments for social security and benefits purposes. However, hon. Members should be clear about the implications of requiring the BBC to operate the concession without the information that we propose.
Every elderly claimant would have to produce, in addition to a completed application form, documentary proof of age. We understand that a substantial proportion of claimants would have difficulty doing so. Many would therefore be put to the inconvenience—and in some cases the expense—of obtaining the necessary documentation. Those entitled to a free licence would also have to reapply each year, as the BBC would have no other means of ensuring that they were still alive and living at the address for which the free licence had been issued.
Without confirmatory information provided by the DSS or the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development to guard against fraud, it would be necessary to adopt a significantly more burdensome approach to policing the concession. In our view, such arrangements would be likely to involve a level of intrusion that would outweigh any loss of privacy from the disclosure of strictly limited social security information under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Edward Leigh: All that sounds very complicated. Would it not be easier just to give pensioners a decent pension?

Mr. Smith: I take it that the hon. Gentleman opposes the Bill. It is not complicated. It is a very simple procedure to enable many millions of people to benefit from the measure that we are proposing.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Bill is eminently sensible. Will not the concession also enable the BBC to recoup the licence fees that it is not collecting? Will not a well-policed system mean that pensioners will be satisfied with the concession, and that the BBC will be satisfied with its rightful income?

Mr. Smith: The BBC will indeed collect the licence fees due to it for the more than 3 million households that the concession affects. That is welcome.
Administering the concession without the information that this Bill will allow to be made available would, in addition to being more open to fraud, also be far more cumbersome and expensive. Moreover, it would almost certainly delay the implementation of the concession.
The alternative proposition of requiring claims to be vetted by the Department of Social Security and the Department for Social Development after submission to the BBC would still require primary legislation, since the


exchange of information necessary and the verification process itself would entail the disclosure of information. Moreover, such an approach would involve considerable duplication of effort and cost by the BBC and by Government Departments.
We fully accept the need to ensure that information of this kind is used only for the purposes for which it has been provided. Clause 2 therefore places strict limits on the purposes for which the BBC and its contractors are able to make use of the social security information. Information provided under these powers may be used only in connection with television licences for which no fee is payable, or reduced-fee licences.
The policy is to ensure that social security information is used only to facilitate the issue of free television licences, including the associated short-term licences, although the Bill contains provision allowing some flexibility should further concessionary schemes be introduced. However, the Bill does not allow the BBC to use information for the purposes of administering any new scheme or, indeed, any existing concession unless an order is made designating the scheme.
Clause 3 protects social security information supplied to the BBC by providing that the recipient of such information—the BBC, one of its contractors, or anyone who works or has worked for such a recipient—is guilty of an offence if they disclose that information without lawful authority. The offence extends to companies, including the BBC as a corporation created by royal charter, to past as well as present employees of such companies, and also to staff working under other arrangements, such as self-employed people engaged on a consultancy basis.
The penalty for an offence will be, on summary conviction, imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to £5,000, or both, and, on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years and an unlimited fine, or both.

Mr. Tim Collins: The Secretary of State correctly states that under clause 3 a new offence is created which could result in someone being sent to prison for up to two years. Why is it deemed necessary to create such a very heavy penalty? People who heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's welcome announcement did not realise that it would result in the creation of a new criminal offence, with such a heavy penalty.

Mr. Smith: The reason is very simple. We have to protect the privacy and strict confidentiality of data which are being made available for specific purposes. That is clear from the content of the Bill.
The approach that we propose, and that the Bill will make possible, has a number of advantages. It will enable the application procedure for a free television licence to be greatly simplified, to the benefit of beneficiaries and—by reducing both the possibility of fraud and the cost of administering the scheme—the taxpayer. Claimants will have only to complete and return a simple form that will be sent out to all households over the coming months. In the majority of cases, there will be no need for any further action on their part. Additional information will need to be sought only if there is a discrepancy between the information provided in the claim form and that held by the BBC as a result of the Bill.
I therefore encourage and request the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I begin by saying how much we regret that this important and, in many ways, welcome measure has been introduced following another Second Reading debate? It is not helpful to the House's consideration of the matter that it takes place at such a late hour.
The Government will no doubt be interested to know whether the Opposition support the granting of free television licences to those over 75. In anticipation of that question, let me say at the outset that of course we give an enthusiastic welcome to any sensible measure that alleviates the burden of the licence fee on the elderly. We have advocated and welcomed measures to halve the fee for registered blind people and to increase subtitling for those who suffer from deafness.

Mr. John Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman has such wholehearted support for this measure, why, in the 18 years that his party was in office, did it fail to introduce any similar measure?

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman asks a rather silly and irrelevant question.
The decision to provide all 75-year-olds with a free television licence will no doubt be very welcome to the beneficiaries, particularly in the light of the paltry 75p a week increase in the basic state pension announced in the Budget. It is, however, a complex scheme to operate, and may be confusing to some people. Indeed, it may be confusing even to the Secretary of State, whose Department, we understand, was not properly consulted prior to the Chancellor's announcement of the scheme. The Secretary of State may be further confused, because he will, in practice, have no say in the operation of the Bill that he has introduced. The right hon. Gentleman is not mentioned in the Bill—it refers to the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chris Smith: May I point out, for the record, that there is no such person as the Secretary of State for Social Services?

Mr. Ainsworth: I meant the Secretary of State for Social Security. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously fairly desperate if he has to make points like that.
The people who matter are the beneficiaries, the 75-year-olds. The measure will require them to opt into the scheme; it will not happen automatically. Those pensioners will still have to apply for a television licence and hold one, even though—provided they have filled in the right form—they will not have to pay for it. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement tonight that multiple applications will not be allowed.
We need to hear what steps the Government are taking to ensure a proper understanding of the measure among those whom it is intended to benefit. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that eligible pensioners do not confuse free licences with no licences?
Will the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting confirm when she winds up that pensioners over 75 found with a television set and no free licence will still be liable


to criminal charges? Will she confirm that elderly pensioners may be liable to pay a fine for failing to hold a free television licence?

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman actually think that we live in a society where we would prosecute an 80-year-old because they were not able to obtain a free licence? How ridiculous can he be?

Mr. Ainsworth: It may be ridiculous, but my understanding is that that is the law. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his Front-Bench colleagues.
There is also the question of households which include a 75-year-old but which do not possess a television set. Although relatively few in number, they do exist. The free television licence is effectively a f104 a year additional benefit for owning a television; a benefit conferred on anyone who lives in an eligible household, whatever their means or age. Are there any plans to provide an equivalent benefit to those households which have chosen not to own a television set? They may feel that they are more than £100 a year worse off than their neighbours as a result of the scheme.
The scheme is innovative and breaks new ground in a number of ways. Welcome though its objectives are, it is inescapable that it adds further complexity to the tax and benefits system, which many people believe is confusing enough already. It casts the BBC—whose prime function is to make and broadcast radio, television and online services—in the role of welfare agent. Admittedly, the BBC is already responsible for the existing concession arrangements which, by general consent, are unsatisfactory and arbitrary.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the BBC has this power because the party of which he is a member gave the BBC the power to collect the licence, which it did not have before his party provided it? That is the reason—but then he has no memory and no knowledge of any of these matters.

Mr. Ainsworth: I was not in the House when the power was conferred, but there is no doubt that the present concessionary scheme has not worked as everyone would have wished. It is full of anomalies and is in need of reform. The Secretary of State himself has said so, although I have not noticed any specific measures coming from the Secretary of State or the Government to tackle the problem of the 130,000 people—pensioners and mentally and physically disabled people—who will remain on the existing scheme and will not benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Chris Smith: For the record, may I remind the hon. Gentleman—he must momentarily have forgotten it—that we extended the existing concessionary scheme to ensure that men aged between 60 and 65 who are in sheltered housing qualify for it, when, previously, they had not?

Mr. Ainsworth: I am indeed aware of that fact, but the Secretary of State has not addressed the problem that arises when someone under 60 arrives in a qualifying home where he or she may inadvertently disqualify existing residents.
The new arrangements will do nothing for people aged under 75 who are on low incomes. Indeed, the Secretary of State may have heard, as we have done, from people for whom his scheme causes unhappiness. For example, a 55-year-old man on income support has wondered angrily why he is not included while the Duke of Devonshire is.

Mr. Leigh: Is not the point that the Government have realised, following the resignation of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the derisory 75p increase, that enthusiasm among pensioners is draining away? All their proposals are mere gimmicks. They are attacking the contributory principle and trying to drain self-reliance from our pensioners, who will not be fooled by gimmicks such as this.

Mr. Ainsworth: I agree that the Government have displeased many pensioners, but my hon. Friend will have heard me say that I welcome any sensible measure that will improve the lot of pensioners, as the free television licence arguably will.
If television ownership is henceforth to be treated as a right or a benefit, the Government must address why people are not entitled to it on age grounds, as well as why they are. If television is to be treated as a right and the BBC as part of the tax and benefits system, it is only fair to ask what the implications are for television and the BBC. The Bill implies that the Government—or the taxpayer—will take a direct financial stake in the BBC from November. In our enthusiasm to provide free licences to those aged over 75, it would be wrong to overlook the significance of the fact that the state—or, depending on how one defines these things, the taxpayer—will take a stake of nearly 15 per cent. in the BBC. That is a major departure in principle, even if the stake is, for the moment, a minority one.
Were the benefit of the free licence to be extended to all households that contain a 65-year-old, the state—or the taxpayer—would take a direct financial interest in more than a third of the BBC's funding. As the possibility of further extending the benefit in that way, or in others, has been the subject of speculation, and because the order-making power in clause 5 implies that the scheme may be extended, the Secretary of State should tell us whether plans exist to extend it. Do the Government contemplate that? If that question is too direct, will the Secretary of State or the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting tell us whether they welcome extension in principle?
The Bill has significant implications for the BBC and its independent funding arrangements.

Miss Anne Begg: I am fairly sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the World Service is funded directly through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does he think that the World Service's integrity is in any way put at risk by that? Is tonight's proposal any different?

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but the World Service has existed for a long time and has acquired its own culture—nor does it deal with the domestic market, as she well knows.
For entirely laudable reasons—the desire to help 75-year-olds—the Government propose to unsettle the BBC's unique funding mechanism, which has been in


place for 70 years. No doubt the Secretary of State will protest, like the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), that no implications arise for the BBC's impartiality from the fact that the Treasury will take a significant interest in the corporation. Some would say that that view is naive; others would argue that the Government enjoy exercising control and like to put their mouth where their money is.
What assurance can the Secretary of State give that the stake taken in the BBC will not lead to interference in the way in which programmes are made or in editorial independence?

Mr. Bermingham: I have lost the hon. Gentleman's logic. If, for example, I went to Sainsburys in Camden and bought some groceries, I would have invested in Sainsburys, but that would not give me a say in the company. The Government are making good a revenue loss; that is not an investment—it is the return of a revenue loss and does not give the Government a say in the BBC.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's age and will not speculate on it, but, under his scenario, in order to help him and to absolve him from paying Sainsburys, the Government would be paying Sainsburys direct; they would be taking a direct stake in the company's future.

Mr. Fabricant: As I am sure that my hon. Friend was not around when the BBC received its royal charter in 1926, I remind him that the corporation argued—the argument is just as applicable at present—that, because it was funded through the licence fee rather than from direct income from the taxpayer, it would remain independent of the Government, who would not be able to alter the amount of money paid every year. The BBC would not be subject to blackmail, as it might be if the amount were increased beyond its current 15 per cent.

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a compelling point.
Some people see the Bill as a bridgehead for a funding system for the BBC of which they disapprove. Colleagues on both sides of the House do not like the licence fee; they may see the Bill as the first practical blow against a funding mechanism that they consider to be unjust and inappropriate in a multi-channel age.
I do not think that the Secretary of State wants the end of the licence fee, although the best way to undermine confidence in it is to go on increasing it—as he has recently done. I do not think that he wants to undermine the licence fee, although giving the taxpayer a direct stake of £340 million a year in funding it might not be construed as helpful in the long run. Those who claim that the Bill, by allowing the Treasury into the BBC's funding, underlines the Government's commitment to the licence fee as an independent funding mechanism, do not understand either the nature of the licence fee or the notion of independence.
I want to ensure that the Secretary of State is aware—acting, as he is, from the best possible motives—of the law of unexpected consequences. That law has been much in evidence recently, in Scotland, Wales, London and the other place. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows

what he is doing by rearranging the settlement that established and has maintained the BBC. We hope to return to those issues later in the Bill's proceedings.
The Bill will involve the disclosure to the BBC, or to unspecified persons or companies providing services to the BBC, of potentially sensitive information about individuals that is held by the Department of Social Security, or, in Northern Ireland, the Department for Social Development. Such information falls under the Data Protection Acts 1984 and 1988.
The Bill's prime function is to give legality to the plan to allow the BBC access to social security information held on individuals. Although such information is not defined in the measure, the explanatory notes state that it
is intended to encompass a range of benefits including retirement pensions, income support, severe disablement allowance and attendance allowance.
The relevance of such information in determining whether a person aged 74 or over is eligible to benefit from the measure is not made clear. I note that the precise information that may be supplied to the BBC will be defined in an order to be published by the Secretary of State for Social Security. I was pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport reassured us on that point. None the less, it is a pity that the Bill does not include a clear definition.
It is important to note that, until now, information on the national insurance database has been made available only to national and local government bodies concerned with administering benefits, crime prevention and justice. Although the BBC owes its existence to a royal charter, it is not a public body in the sense that Customs and Excise and local authorities are public bodies. The Bill therefore creates a precedent in the way that it amends the Data Protection Acts.
Concern has been expressed in particular about the way in which previously protected information may in future be made available not only to the BBC, but to
any person providing the BBC with services in connection with television licences.
That is a wide definition, and clearly includes the possibility of commercial companies being given access to sensitive information. It is regrettable that the identity of those companies is not specified in the Bill.
The explanatory notes state that
much of the administration of the television licensing system is carried out on behalf of the BBC by contractors.
Just over a year ago, the contract for the administration and enforcement of the licence fee was awarded to a new company, Envision, whose shareholders are the Post Office subsidiary SSL, the WPP Group and Bull Information Systems Ltd. I should be grateful if the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting could, in her winding-up speech, let the House know whether any other contractors may be in receipt of social security information about elderly pensioners as a result of the Bill. It is worth noting that the social security information that will be given to the BBC includes information about all 74-year-olds, whether or not they own a television. That has caused concern to civil rights groups.
Clause 3 sets out several offences designed to safeguard the security of the information that may be disclosed to the BBC and its contractors. Those safeguards are important, and it is essential that they are watertight.
National insurance information and the name, address and age of individuals could, in the wrong hands, be open to abuse. In particular, such information could give rise to benefit fraud or other types of fraud. It could also be used to make commercial gain at the expense of elderly and vulnerable people. We shall want closely to examine those issues at a later stage.
While welcoming the scheme, it would be wrong not to give consideration to its cost. It is a matter of disquiet that nobody has yet produced a definitive number of households that will be eligible to benefit from the scheme. The Secretary of State said tonight that the figure was significantly more than 3 million; we previously heard from the Government that it was upwards of 3 million, and earlier than that it was around 3 million, so it has not been settled.
As a result, there has been considerable variation in the estimated cost of providing free licences to those aged over 75. The Gavyn Davies panel established by the Secretary of State put the cost at £283 million; more recently, the Government put the cost at £300 million. I understand that the BBC recently estimated the cost to be between £320 million and £330 million, and tonight we heard that the figure is £340 million. I wonder what it will be next week.
It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could tell the House how many households he believes will benefit and what the cost will be once the scheme is up and running. In addition, I understand that there will be considerable start-up costs. They are estimated at about £20 million and the annual running costs are estimated to be in the region of £10 million. I should be grateful for confirmation of those figures. It is of course a great relief to the BBC that those costs will be borne by the Government and not by the corporation, which already spends £133 million a year collecting the licence fee.
I have outlined some of the complex issues to which the Bill gives rise. No doubt we will want closely to scrutinise the measures in the Bill's later stages. The Bill does not provide the opportunity to discuss the wider issues of BBC funding, but I want to place on the record Conservative Members' view that the BBC's priorities should be first to define its remit, and secondly to look to reduce the licence fee for everyone. That is the best way to achieve a fair, simple and sustainable method of funding public service broadcasting.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I listened to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) with growing incredulity. He put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a question that can be answered only when the Bill is passed. We can only estimate the number of beneficiaries from the measure because the information that the Bill makes available is not yet available. When it is available, my right hon. Friend will be able to assess accurately and with total precision the number of beneficiaries.
The sheer ignorance shown by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about the origins of the licence and the way in which it is collected and used is extraordinary.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I will in a moment. Let me make that point clear. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) spoke quite inaccurately about the origins of the licence and its purpose. The licence was introduced not to fund the BBC, but as a tax on the ownership of a wireless set. It was introduced by a Conservative Government. It was equivalent to the tax on the ownership of a dog, which then existed. The money went to the BBC because the BBC was the only broadcasting organisation.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. In the same way, the hon. Member—

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my name and said that I had got something historically wrong. He has misled the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rise on a point of order and then make a point that is simply a matter for debate.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not even complain about the hon. Gentleman's use of unparliamentary language when he said that I had misled the House. You did not hear that. If you had heard it, you would have asked him to withdraw it. As the hon. Gentleman is making such a total fool of himself—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should proceed in a slightly calmer way.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: There are several points that I wish to make, then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for East Surrey.
In a speech full of cheap points, the hon. Gentleman attacked the Government for what he called a paltry increase of 75p a week in the pension. I happen to believe that that increase is too small, and I have encouraged my right hon. Friends to increase it, but the only reason that it is 75p is that the hon. Gentleman's party in office cut the link between earnings and pensions, and linked pensions to inflation. The 75p increase is the result of that link. Whereas Labour Members of Parliament certainly have a right to say that they wish that the increase were higher, Conservatives have not. The formula was introduced by the Conservatives.

Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in one of his more vituperative and dyspeptic moods. May I take him back to his opening remarks? He said that the Secretary of State had not been able to produce the definitive number of households


because the information did not exist. If the information does not exist on the national insurance database, what is the point of providing the information to the BBC? The BBC does not have access to the information, but that is not to say that it does not exist.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend wasted his breath by correcting the hon. Gentleman when he misnamed the Department of Social Security as the Department of Social Services. Since on their showing today the Conservatives will never hold any of those offices, regardless of what they are called, I do not know why my right hon. Friend bothered.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is behaving immoderately. When he can contain himself, and when his expression changes from the deep red on his face now—

Mr. Fabricant: It is a suntan.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that the Bill concerns simply the transfer of information from the DSS to the BBC? Perhaps we can now get back calmly to the content of the Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall do so happily. It had been my only end to deal with that matter—before the Opposition began to make such utter idiots of themselves throughout today's proceedings, something that we shall certainly be communicating to the electorate in, for example, the Lichfield constituency.

Mr. Fabricant: Right: will the right hon. Gentleman now give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fabricant: I have made it absolutely clear that I welcome the provision. As the right hon. Gentleman probably does not have any understanding of history and would not want deliberately to mislead the House, may I inform him that I was correct? The licence was introduced as a fee when the BBC received its royal charter in 1926, as I said. He is wrong; the radio tax was introduced in 1923, when the BBC was the British Broadcasting Company. We are talking about the British Broadcasting Corporation. Will he now apologise?

Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better for having got that off his chest. Of course, the BBC was founded not in 1923 but in 1922. So, we are all square on that. He can now calm down and recover his breath, and we can go on to discuss the contents of the Bill, as I had always intended to do.
I feel particular pride and pleasure in the Bill because, as shadow Home Secretary, I made free licences for pensioners Labour party policy. The Bill is a partial fulfilment of that. It is a matter of great satisfaction to many thousands of my constituents, as it will be to millions of people all over the country, that the Government have introduced this excellent measure.
The hon. Member for East Surrey, among many other things when the election comes, will have to explain why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the Conservatives in 18 years never introduced something that they now say is a good thing and will not oppose. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would say that he introduced a Bill on the subject during that time. That is absolutely true; he has a record on the issue that is nearly as good as mine.
I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill not for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated but for those to which the hon. Member for East Surrey alluded. I approve of the measure very strongly indeed, and so will very many of my constituents, but not only because it will introduce free licences for people aged 75 and older. Its provisions make it possible to introduce free licences for a great many others. I very much hope that, as the years proceed, with this Government in power, as they will be, they will use the order-making power to widen the scope of the concession.
I am delighted that more than 3 million people now qualify for free television licences, and so are my constituents. That is excellent, but since the information will be available, there is scope for the provision to be widened, and for all pensioners to receive a free licence. I have sufficient confidence in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor runs the economy to believe that it will not be too long before the Government can introduce free licences for 60-year-old women and 65-year-old men.
The hon. Member for East Surrey—this bit of the Bill he had read and understands—made the point that the Bill refers to disclosure of information about people on income support. I very much hope that the finances of this country, under the enlightened policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, will eventually lead us to providing free licences for those on other benefits, too.

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful for the plug that my right hon. Friend gave me, but does he agree that it would be wise for us in the coming general election campaign, whenever it is, to warn the electorate that, if the Conservatives were to take office, what we are introducing would certainly be taken away?

Mr. Kaufman: The possibility of a Conservative Government is not a hypothesis; it is fantasy. My hon. Friend knows that I respect him, but I do not want to speculate on that, because the notion of Conservative Members forming a Government after their antics today is so absurd that it is not worth contemplating for more than a moment.

Mr. Winnick: We should warn the electors all the same.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, I do not mind issuing a big warning. I shall go to Lichfield among other places to do that.

Mr. Winnick: Is the majority 277?

Mr. Kaufman: No, 238.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying into territory where he should not be.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall now stray back to the theme of my argument before my hon. Friend intervened. As the hon. Member for East Surrey accurately pointed out, the Bill makes it possible to provide free licences for millions of people on social benefits. That is excellent. I told the Chancellor on the night that he announced his comprehensive spending review that I supported his comments about licences because it was an excellent move. However, it is also the thin end of the wedge.
I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for East Surrey that the independence of the BBC will be eroded. The BBC is capable of being hostile to us all without any particular incentive. I do not believe that the Bill will affect its independence, which would not be compromised if many more millions of people got free licences, or if the licence were ultimately abolished. The Bill does not provide for that, it provides for giving information that will lead to free licences for those aged 75 and over. It also creates the basis for many more people to have free licences.
As the country's prosperity increases under this Government and the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, many more people will be able to have free television licences. I am delighted that the basis for that has been created today in the Bill. Although I support the Government with joy in every Division, I shall go into the Lobby with particular pleasure if the Tories, through folly, force a Division even on closure.

Mr. Winnick: I hope that they do.

Mr. Kaufman: I, too, hope that they do, because I would like the names of the people who tried to block the measure to be recorded in black and white. However, I do not believe that they will dare.

Mr. Norman Baker: I do not intend to delay the House for long because the measure is sensible and uncontroversial. It is a matter for other hon. Members if they wish to detain the House; that will become apparent in due course.
The Bill will enact a measure that is welcome to all parties. It will provide free television licences for those aged 75 and over. The Secretary of State has shown that the method is sensible and I am convinced that it is the best way in which to achieve the Government's objective.
It is a pity that pensioners aged between 65 and 75 will not receive free television licences. I hope that the Government aspire to move towards that when the economy allows. I believe that the economy already allows for it, given the amount of money that the Chancellor has stashed away. Perhaps the Secretary of State will put in a claim for some of it to help pensioners aged between 65 and 75 who feel excluded from the measure. By saying that, I do not detract from the measure, which is welcome for those aged 75 and over.
Some hon. Members have mentioned pension levels. Although they are not the subject of tonight's debate, I hope that I can respond to one point. Some hon. Members claimed that although the measure is welcome,

it is no substitute for a decent state pension. I wish to put on record that I share that sentiment. However, earlier this year, hon. Members, including Conservative Members who made that point, had the opportunity to support a Liberal Democrat motion stating that the increase of 75p in the pension was inadequate. However, not one Conservative Member supported that motion in the Lobby. Perhaps those with that sentiment might consider how to vote when similar motions come before the House.
The Bill's principle is correct as is the method, which is to make it as easy as possible for a person over 75 to obtain a free television licence. The Secretary of State is right to say that the alternative method—production of documents—would be bureaucratic and expensive. Bringing such documents together might be a worry for some people of that age, so it must be sensible and right to use the easiest method possible.
What are the possible drawbacks? I do not agree about the alleged implications for the BBC's independence as I do not believe that there are any. Government pressure—not pressure from this Government—is generally put on the BBC during the licence fee negotiations. That is the key point at which Government pressure may be applied and I have seen no evidence of it. This arrangement will make no difference whatever to the BBC's income. If anything, it will enhance it by guaranteeing that pensioners over 75 will have a TV licence and that the money will be refunded by the Government. There are no such implications: as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, the BBC World Service has been funded directly by the Government for many years and I have seen no evidence that it has been unduly sympathetic to the Government of the day. The BBC's independence is well established and has been continuous. We should all be proud of that, and the drawback does not exist.
The civil liberties implications, which were referred to by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) from the Conservative Front Bench, could be a drawback. I recognise that the Bill will infringe civil liberties to some extent, but as a member of Liberty and someone who is committed to civil liberties, I have no worries. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said—I beg his pardon if it was not him—it might help if the extent of the information to be used were codified.

Mr. Bermingham: I am at a loss to understand the hon. Gentleman's point. How can asking a person's name, address, date of birth and national insurance number infringe civil liberties? For example, when the hon. Gentleman applies to a loan company or to anyone else, they ask for those details. Although they may not ask for his national insurance number, they may ask about his employment and employer. There is no infringement there; what is the infringement here?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that I speak in support of the Government; I am not attacking them. I should not have given way to him and I always regret it. I shall try not to do so in future.
There could be a civil liberties implication, but, as I said, I do not regard it to be of such magnitude as to warrant any attempt to hold up the Bill. However, it is important to quantify the extent to which information will be used to ensure that there is no extension without parliamentary authority and accountability. The Secretary


of State nods; there is no disagreement over that. If we are to discuss civil liberties implications for the country, we might consider closed circuit television, the use of DNA testing or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Those could impinge far more than the Bill, whose impingement is minuscule.
On cost, the Secretary of State gave a figure of £344 million and £24.3 million for administration. If the £24.3 million is to be refunded automatically to the BBC by TV Licensing, I am keen to ensure that there is an incentive to minimise the administration charge. If it is to be repaid by the Government, whatever it is, what is the incentive to minimise? I hope that they have a mechanism to ensure that the charge is realistic, not a method of raising funds by the back door. Will the Minister address that point?
Will the Minister also deal with the point about the 75-year-old who buys a licence at full cost, despite any campaign that the Government may launch, putting information through every letterbox? Some people may do that for one or two years until they realise that they qualify for a free licence. That may be unlikely, but it could occur. Will such people be able to reclaim the money for the licence that they did not legally need to buy? Will they be able to say that they made a mistake and have bought a licence for two years, and ask for their £208 back? Will that be possible under the arrangements in the Bill?
I have read the Bill carefully, and it refers to restrictions on a person using information that has accrued. The Secretary of State alluded to that obliquely, but can the Minister confirm that the BBC is covered by those restrictions, and that it will not be allowed to use for other purposes, such as marketing, the information provided solely for this narrow purpose?

Mr. Chris Smith: indicated assent.

Mr. Baker: The Minister nods. I was certain that that would be the answer, but I wanted to get it on the record.
The hon. Member for East Surrey was derided by Labour Members when he raised a legalistically important issue. He asked about the legal position of someone who qualifies for a free licence but does not possess a licence. What is the position of such a person?
Those minor questions need to be answered, and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that they are important in their own right. The Bill is sensible. It enacts important legislation to give pensioners over 75 a free television licence. In the judgment of the Liberal Democrats it does that in a sensible way and with the minimum of bureaucracy. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will support the Government should any maverick Conservatives call for a vote on the Bill.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in welcoming the Bill. I particularly welcome this measure as it is estimated that it will affect 5,500 of my constituents, who will receive a free television licence on 1 November this year. The Government are beginning to sort out part of the legacy left by the Tories in 1997. I hope that this is the first step in altering the structure of the concessionary licence

scheme, which generates many complaints, especially from people in non-qualifying accommodation who have neighbours who qualify. The scheme is unfair and unsatisfactory.
The independent review panel chaired by Gavyn Davies, which reported in July last year, was asked to consider whether an alternative was available. It concluded that
the current Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary scheme should be retained, despite its obvious drawbacks, since no superior alternative, funded from the licence fee, has been found.
In an annexe to that report entitled "Possible reform of the Accommodation for Residential Care Concessionary Scheme" it stated that a possible reform might consist of four changes.
It has been brought to my attention by borough councillors in my constituency that there has recently been a review in the Rotherham borough by the television licensing authority. More than 200 people have been informed that they no longer qualify for a concessionary television licence. The vast majority of them have qualified for years. The review was prompted by inquiries from other residents. The 200 were informed by letter on 13 March this year that their properties are now deemed by the television licensing authority to fall outside the common and exclusive boundary criteria.
One of the four possible changes suggested by the review panel was
to remove the restriction that the scheme must be a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary.
If that were implemented, it is likely that none of those 200 would be affected. Of course I recognise that the Government have to respond to the review panel's report comprehensively, and cannot just pick off one or two items. However, the situation is causing great concern to those elderly residents, many of whom exist on means-tested benefits. The ruling implies that they will have to find £100 with which to purchase full licences by 1 May: effectively, they have been given only five weeks' notice. Will the provisions mentioned earlier by the Secretary of State enable my constituents to purchase short-term licences? It is very likely that many of those 200 will be eligible for free licences in the autumn.
I feel that the licensing authority has handled the matter badly. I accept that it is independent of Government, but will my hon. Friend the Minister look into the anomaly as a matter of urgency, and establish whether an internal review could take place inside the authority to—at the very least—stop it from proceeding with the change affecting people who will become eligible for free licences in the autumn? Putting pressure on those people to find money now, when for years they have not had to find more than £5 for their concessionary licences, strikes me as insensitive, to say the least.
I congratulate the Government on the Bill. I hope that it constitutes the first step towards clearing up the mess that we inherited from the Tories—a mess that has caused a great deal of anger and frustration to many of our constituents for far too long.

Mr. Howard Flight: I am glad that the Government have finally introduced the measure that I proposed in a ten-minute Bill on 15 July
1997. As the House will recollect, the then Minister—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—explained to me that it was not current Government policy to adopt my proposal. I argued then, as a green new Member, that it was those aged 75 and above who depended most on their television sets, and that they were also the poorest members of society. That is an entirely pragmatic argument. I calculated then that the cost would be about £290 million; we have heard what it is today. I stress that I do not think there is the same case for free licences for those aged between 65 and 75, some 70 per cent. of who are relatively well off—often a good deal better off than families bringing up children.
However, I do not understand why the Government have chosen this machinery with which to implement the measure. The arrangement seems to be that people must have a licence, and the Government are to pay. Would it not be much cheaper and simpler if people sent their licence applications along to the Department of Social Security and the Department, which has the records, settled the matter directly with the licensing authority? The Government are going all round the houses by requiring the DSS to give information to the BBC and the BBC to come back with it, whether or not the issue of confidentiality is material. I do not know why such a convoluted route has been chosen to deal with the simple issue of the Government's paying for licences.
Do the Government intend at some stage to extend the free licence to those aged under 75, or to other categories? Other hon. Members have made much play of that possibility. If so, what is the justification in terms of those who are most in need?
Finally—for it is late—what, if any, new ramifications are involved? I believe that there may be requirements for all pensioner benefits to come into operation at a standard age at some time in the future.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I, too, welcome the Bill in general, but what a shame that it has not been funded either by greater efficiency in the BBC—which I am sure that the Secretary of State would also have liked—or by alternative means of financing the BBC, such as sponsorship or even advertising on Radio 1 or Radio 2. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—who has now left—did not argue, as he normally does in his Select Committee, for the total privatisation of the BBC, rather than its being another burden on the taxpayer.
I am still concerned about the whole issue of funding by the taxpayer. I cannot help but accuse the Secretary of State of being a man—and, indeed, part of a Government—who breaks principles and then builds on the breaking of the principle. For example, some years ago, the principle of additionality was broken when the national lottery was applied by the Secretary of State to fund health and education, which would normally be paid for by the taxpayer.
The principle was that the BBC's domestic services at least should be funded by the licence payer. Now, about 15 per cent. will be funded by the taxpayer. Although the spokesman for the Opposition said that he did not see any difficulty with that, I do. As I said in an intervention on

the right hon. Member for Gorton, John Reith, later Lord Reith, knew in 1926, as people know now, that it would be easy for the Government to say that they would pay less or more in a particular year to the BBC for funding. There would be the threat of blackmail.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hope that, just for the record, my hon. Friend will clarify his reference to the spokesman for the Opposition. I think that he was referring to the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend—I was referring to the minor Opposition, the Liberal Democrats. I certainly did not mean my hon. Friend, who is far too sensible to have made the points made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Bermingham: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the logicality in what he has said? He suggested that, if the BBC became totally privatised, it could rely on sponsorship, advertising and such things. If that is so, who pays the costs? The answer is the purchaser of the goods, the advertising and everything else, which means that, eventually, the costs rise for the elderly and there is no concession.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) will not respond.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the financing of the matter be outside the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate. It is not part of this debate, and I have so ruled.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not argue with the ruling that I have just made.

Mr. Bermingham: I am going to ask a question on the ruling. Can the occupant of the Chair please explain the following? If we are debating the financing of the BBC, how can a question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that that is not what we are debating. The Bill is concerned with the transfer of information from the Department of Social Security to another body. That is the sole scope of the debate. What the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise is outside the scope.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am concerned about the actual cost of the services. I would have thought that, if they were subcontracted to private firms, a cost saving would result, but it seems, unless I have misunderstood the Secretary of State—I may have done—that there will be an approximate 10 per cent. collection charge. That seems extremely high. I hope that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting can clarify the matter, particularly as there


will be no collection: once the information is provided by the Department of Social Security and its similar bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be no collection charge. Therefore, I cannot see why 10 per cent. is the amount that has been determined by the Government as the cost for maintaining that system.
I share some concern about making the database available to third parties. I accept that it is only dates of birth, names, addresses and national insurance numbers, but that, too, creates a dangerous precedent. I welcome the Bill's provisions on the high penalties that will come into play if people give information out, but we all know that information is leaked. There are high penalties—under Labour or Conservative Governments—when firms have subcontracted to print White Papers and other Government documents, and information from those documents has been leaked. I should like to know specifically what rigorous controls Ministers will apply to ensure that the information provided by the Bill does not leak out.
I should like briefly to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who argued that the BBC World Service has been funded directly by Government. If memory serves me right, that funding was established, in 1936, as grant in aid from the Foreign Office. However, as the Opposition spokesman my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, the BBC World Service is not a domestic service, but an international service. Arguably, therefore, the Government may not, for political reasons, wish to intervene—at least on a daily basis—in the editorial decisions of the BBC World Service.
In 1926, the founding principle of the British Broadcasting Corporation was that BBC radio news—which is now BBC radio and television news; in addition to new media, such as BBC Online, that are also funded by the licence fee—was concerned on a minute-by-minute basis, let alone a daily basis with domestic political affairs. It could therefore be argued that, in domestic matters, the Government might well have an interest in interfering with BBC editorial control. It was for that reason that the licence fee was designed to be at one remove from daily interference by the Government.
I do not wish to detain the House. However, I should like to say how very much I welcome the Secretary of State's comment when I intervened on him and he said that people over 75 who live with their younger families could bring to their whole household exemption from the licence fee. My mother lives 100 yd from me, in Lichfield. She is 89 and spends some time watching television. Now, I have an incentive perhaps to ask her to move in with me; then again, perhaps not.
With all the slight doubts that I have expressed, I wish the Bill a fair wind.

Mr. Chris Smith: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not one of the legislation's purposes to impose such an awful prospect on his mother?

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. I thought that encouraging older people to live with their families might be part of the Government's social exclusion policy, and that the concession might be quite an incentive in achieving that objective. I am shocked that the Secretary of State, who

usually takes such a lateral—even joined-up—view of government, has not discussed that possibility with the social exclusion unit.
Nevertheless, as the hour is getting late, and as the right hon. Member for Gorton is keen to climb into his cot, I shall detain the House no longer.

Mr. David Maclean: I think that it is important, first, to say that it is outrageous that we are commencing our consideration of the Bill so late at night. The Bill deserved a proper Second Reading, starting at about 3.30 or 4 pm. If Labour Members are complaining that it is rather later in the evening and that we should have started on the Bill earlier, they should realise that the Government should not have scheduled for one day the Second Reading debates of two important pieces of legislation.
I am very concerned at the way in which the Bill goes about trying to secure its purpose. I have no objection whatsoever to free television licences for those who are 75 or over. Unfortunately, the Government do not go far enough—there should be free television licences for everyone. I do not approve at all of the BBC's current funding method, and should like that system to be radically changed.
It was quite interesting listening to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—who I assume has now managed to make the "Dispatches" programme. I do give him my apologies for the fact that he has missed so many important television programmes today on which he could have aired his views on the Bill.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): Make a point.

Mr. Maclean: I have some other points, which the Deputy Whip may encourage me to make more quickly or more slowly, depending on his sedentary interventions.
One theme running through the comments of the right hon. Member for Gorton and other Labour Members was how much of an electoral ploy they thought the measure was. It was instructive to hear the right hon. Gentleman threaten to visit Lichfield and explain to my hon. Friend's constituents how generous Labour was and how mean other parties were. Whatever noble causes may have inspired the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Gorton and others consider it purely an electoral tactic. Good luck to them; there is no harm in that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is as successful in Lichfield as he is everywhere else. That is why the Labour party keeps him off the television all the time.
The Government have gone about this in the wrong way. If they want to ensure that people aged 74 pay progressively less for their television licence and then get a free licence when they are 75, they should not go about it by issuing information on everybody aged 74 and above to a commercial company, which will check that information against television licence applications and decide whether the person is eligible.
The Government should keep all that information to themselves. There should be a little department within the Department of Social Security to which the BBC or its


agents apply to get a certificate stating whether someone is eligible. The best analogy that I can give is from my experience in the Home Office, when we set up the system for criminal record office certificates. We are keen that people who may be working with children or applying for jobs in sensitive environments should have their criminal records checked. The Government do not go about that by issuing all the information on the criminal records computers to schools, nurseries, Securicor and employment organisations, which then look at Maclean's criminal record when he comes along looking for a job and decide whether to give him one. We would be appalled if the Government behaved like that, but that is similar to what the Bill would do. The system that we set up for criminal records checks was—

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I was out of order for questioning the way in which the fee was to be paid, how can reference to criminal records be in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the method of transfer of information and whether it is desirable. That appears to be in order and within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely using the criminal records system as an analogy for the mechanism that we should have. That goes to the heart of the Bill. The mechanism should be similar to the system for criminal records. The Government should keep the information. When someone aged 74 or over applies for a television licence, they should state their name and address on the form and claim that they are eligible. The agencies collecting the licence fee for the BBC would send a computer printout to the Department of Social Security once a month giving the relevant names and would ask the Department to check whether those claiming a free licence were eligible. The DSS would run the names supplied of claimants claiming a free licence through its computers and send back a simple yes or no answer to the BBC or its agents. The Department would merely confirm to the BBC or its collectors whether claimant Maclean was entitled to a free television licence. That is the system we have implemented for criminal record checks, whereby the sensitive information is kept at the centre and the person inquiring is given a little chitty stating eligibility.

Mr. Flight: Given that the Government have to pay, the DSS could pay at the same time; otherwise another transaction would have to take place to pay the money over.

Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. I would like to hear from the Government, perhaps in Committee—we may have to table amendments to secure the information—whether they have done a costing exercise on the system that they propose. I am certain that they must have done so, but have they done a costing exercise on the system that I have described? What is the difference in cost? Would it be more expensive for the DSS to retain the information and wait for the BBC or its agents to supply

a list of names to check for eligibility? If my suggestion, which is more secure and answers the civil liberties question, is more expensive, we can make a qualitative judgment as to whether the civil liberties benefits of my suggestions outweigh the lower cost of the system that the Government have chosen.
The civil liberties implications of the Bill will mean that anyone who turns 74 will suddenly find their information supplied to the BBC's collecting agents, whether they have a television or not. That is my reading of the Bill, although reading the Bill does not take us very far forward. It contains no detail, and the notes tell us everything. The notes tell us that the name, address, date of birth and national insurance number will be supplied, but all that should be in the Bill. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you care to note that the information provided in the explanatory notes is more worth while than normal. That is not to say that the notes are wonderful, but that the Bill is lousy.
The removal of the civil liberties danger is important, because if the DSS hangs on to the information it would not be issuing it willy-nilly the second someone turns 74 or 75. It would give out the information only when it was approached by a licensing authority, or the collectors for the BBC, when someone applied for a free television licence. So the information about the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)— and anybody else who does not have a television and does not want a licence, and who is aged 75 or more—would remain secret on the DSS's computers, as it should. Surely that is the right way round. It is right to keep that information secret and issue it only when an application is made for a free television licence, instead of giving it out to the BBC's agents even for those who are not applying for a free licence.
A dangerous precedent will be set by the methodology that the Government have adopted. The Secretary of State, who is an honourable man, may assure the House that his regulations will cover only what is in the explanatory notes—the age, the address, the date of birth and the national insurance number of persons aged 74 or over. I believe the right hon. Gentleman. However, for the first time, a Government Department will hold sensitive and personal information and will have it ready to issue to commercial companies operating as the agents of the BBC. I have no idea when, but another Government will come to the House with an honourable, noble measure of great importance to our constituents. That measure may require the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the Department of Social Security to issue yet more information about citizens to some other commercial organisation.
The Queen's Speech contained no such Bill. The Government have no plans to bounce one into the House next week, but sooner or later the precedent set tonight will mean that it will be quoted whenever a Government want to issue private information from their computers to commercial organisations. If we accept that is all right for a limited amount of such information to be issued to certain commercial organisations, there is nothing to stop another Secretary of State in another Government from exploiting that principle in ways of which this House would thoroughly disapprove.
The nature of the important information involved should be included on the face of the Bill. I did not accept the earlier explanation from the Secretary of State that


only very limited information was involved so it was not necessary to include it on the face of the Bill. Ministers normally say the opposite—that information is too complex, with too many boring, technical regulations to be so included. We are told that this Bill involves only four bits of information—age, address, date of birth and national insurance number.
That is the guts of what I want put on the face of the Bill. If that were to be done, we would not have to take the word of the Secretary of State, honourable man though he is, that the regulations will deal only with that matter. We would also guard against the danger that another Secretary of State might publish regulations requiring a little more information if the BBC or other bodies asked for it. Such bodies may believe that further information from the Government computers would help them, but putting the elements in the regulations on the face of the Bill would reassure those worried about the precedent that the Bill creates, and show that the narrow range of information required will not be widened.
I shall not dwell on clause 2, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will have more to say on free television licences for all.
Clause 3(3) states that it
is not an offence under this section … to disclose information in the form of a summary or collection of information so framed as not to enable information supplied under section 1 relating to any particular person to be ascertained from it.
I want to raise a point that no one has mentioned before. The Secretary of State did not mention it when he opened the debate: he did not cover it up, but he did not mention it.
Great stress was laid on the penalties that will apply to those who use the information supplied improperly or disclose information that they should not disclose. Everyone is concerned to ensure that if the Government create the precedent of giving private, sensitive, social security information about our oldest and most vulnerable pensioners to a private company, it will never be disclosed. I can accept that—but why on earth does clause 3(3) provide for the ability of the BBC or its agents—the collecting agencies—to disclose information in the form of a summary? I have heard no justification for that.
The clause provides that information about Joe Bloggs and other individuals will not be disclosed; it will be given in summary form. What sort of summary? Will the BBC issue a report in a couple of years saying that in the previous year 1 million people aged 75 to 80, 500,000 aged 82, and 100,000 aged 97 had free television licences? If so, I can understand the Department of Social Security wanting that information, although goodness knows what it would do with it. It might wish to make projections on the cost to the Government, bearing in mind what life expectancy is, and on the declining incidence of free television licences. However, given developments in medical science, and with people living longer, the Government may be facing a rising curve.
There might be some interesting information there for the Department of Social Security, the national statistical office and Government actuaries. But why on earth should the commercial organisations that are receiving this confidential information need to disclose it in summary form? Who will be the user? Who will be the beneficiary? Why should it be done?
It would be more reassuring if the Government said that the limited information that would be disclosed to the commercial companies—name, address, date of birth and national insurance number—would under no circumstances be disclosed further or published in summary form. That information might be used in court cases only if there has been an abuse or someone has been prosecuted. It is not reassuring that clause 3(3) allows a big loophole of disclosure in summary form.

Mr. Bill Rammell: The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes, and I am still not clear whether he supports the principle of pensioners over the age of 75 getting free television licences. Can he clarify his views?

Mr. Maclean: I know you listen very carefully to these debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you will have heard me say at the start of my speech that I am in favour of free television licences for everyone. I am totally opposed to the way in which the BBC is funded through the licence fee. If the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he may hear that view expressed by others who might be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The other important loophole is clause 3(4):
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he believed—
(a) that he was making the disclosure in question with lawful authority, or
(b) that the information in question had previously been disclosed to the public with lawful authority.
That is a wonderful open house get-out. What is the standard of proof? People in commercial companies who disclose the information or use it improperly can say in their defence, "I believed that I was doing so lawfully," or, "I believed that it was already in the public domain, so it is all right." That is far too low a threshold, and the words "he believed" must be deleted if we are to have proper security for information. Many hon. Members who are lawyers would be delighted to defend someone whose defence in court was that they believed that what they were doing was all right. They would be easy to defend, and that would drive a coach and horses through the provisions of a Bill that demands secrecy and the security of information.
Clause 3 deals with offences, but contains too many loopholes on disclosure. That must be addressed in Committee or on Report. If it is not, many people will believe—with some justification—not only that the Government have taken an unprecedented and wrong route in terms of the supply of information, but that they have done so in a cavalier manner.
We all understand that the Bill was drafted with some urgency. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport had this proposal bounced upon it, and we have all heard on the grapevine that the Government must have the Bill as urgently as possible, as they are bound to an awful timetable. We all know that, with the huge amount of Government legislation, the parliamentary draftsmen are under pressure. I do not blame the draftsmen, but the brief that they received from Ministers may have led to the loopholes.
The Bill requires some tightening up. If we cannot persuade the Government, on principle, to change the methodology that I have described in detail, we must get


them to tighten up the drastic loopholes in the Bill on the release and disclosure of information. We must ensure that my constituents who do not have a television and do not need a licence have confidential information about them protected. That information must not be given willy-nilly to commercial companies who might abuse it, and then find that they have a defence because the Bill was not drafted tightly enough.
I am happy for the Bill to proceed, and I support its principle as the first step towards the complete abolition of the iniquitous television licence system. However, I wish to see a considerable tightening up of this sloppy Bill.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I appreciate that you have ruled against me on several occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall seek not to breach your rulings by referring to sources and methods of funding.
I find it somewhat sad that I listened to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) speaking for 21 minutes; it was a short speech by his standards of recent days.

Maria Eagle: It was 25 minutes.

Mr. Bermingham: Twenty-five minutes, I am told. The right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the Bill, and then went on to say nothing at all. In fact, he contradicted himself time and time again. The Bill is rather simple, and can be easily read. It says one thing; that we will give pensioners over the age of 75 a free television licence.

Mr. Forth: It does not say that, actually.

Mr. Bermingham: It says that pensioners will be entitled to a free television licence. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has yet to bore us; but he will no doubt do so, as he bored us earlier this evening. I would not wish to trespass outside the terms of the Bill by saying what I really thought about the one hour and 10 minutes that we had from the right hon. Gentleman earlier, much of which I listened to and the rest of which I watched. As an exercise in filibustering, it was second to none, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that. [Interruption.]He is blowing me a kiss, and I should perhaps treat him to the same—I did not know he was like that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak about the Bill. From what he has just said, it seems that his perception of what it is about is fundamentally incorrect. The Bill is about the conveyance of information. That, and nothing else, is what that I am willing to hear the hon. Gentleman discuss.

Mr. Bermingham: I accept unreservedly that I have once again been chastised, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In talking about the transfer of information, I was talking about what information should be transferred on the right to have, or not to have, a free television licence. [Interruption.] I see

you shake your head. Mr. Deputy Speaker; obviously, you disagree with what I am saying. So be it. I shall try another approach: I do so, I hope, with grace and gentleness, but perhaps a little sense of worry after my 16 years and 10 months in the House. Free speech is in question. The right to question is in question. The right to comment is in question. The right to express one's views is in question, and I find all of that deeply offensive and worrying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is once again going wide of the matter before the House. We are dealing with a fairly narrow, technical Bill, and there is no restriction whatever on free speech or expression within the terms of that Bill. The hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, must appreciate that the House can, at any one time, deal only with the particular matter before it.

Mr. Bermingham: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. I have listened tonight to long speeches on an extremely narrow subject. I simply say that what is sauce for the goose—myself—should be sauce for the ganders. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I sense an underlying challenge to the occupant of the Chair in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Nothing that has taken place so far can have been out of order. The Chair has had to rule from time to time, but, if hon. Members are able to speak at length while remaining in order, it is a matter for them. The Chair will pick Members up if they stray out of order. I am trying to say to the hon. Gentleman that he may not talk about the general conduct of debate, but must talk about the Bill before us.

Mr. Bermingham: I have made my preliminary points, and I intend to be brief. I hope that my example will be followed.
The Bill is indeed narrow. It deals with a transfer of information. A concession is to be given, and there is a need to qualify for it. That is an extremely narrow point, and the Bill relates to information that the BBC is entitled to obtain or have verified, directly or through an agent, so that it may recoup the fees that it would have received had there been no such concession. It must ascertain that the people to whom the concession is given qualify for it. It must ascertain how many there are.
Comment has been made—I must be careful not to go outside the narrow confines, Mr. Deputy Speaker—about how many such people there are. In truth, that can never be known or quantified. We do not know who will die between today and the date in November when the Bill will come into effect. Nothing is predictable. Actuarial estimates may be made, but accurate predictions are impossible.
Argument made on the basis of such predictions seemed to me to go outside the scope of this rather narrow Bill, which talks merely about a transfer of information. If I am straying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be corrected again, and I may even give up. But I am trying to say merely that the Bill is so simple and straightforward that I cannot understand why there has been so much debate—a remark I make even against myself.
The BBC is entitled to verify only that people who apply for a reduced or nil-cost licence are over 75 or about to attain that age; that they have a home and an address for which computers will show that no other application has been made; and that they have a national insurance number—as we all do from the moment of our birth—from which verification of age can be obtained.
That seems to be what the Bill is all about. I do not understand why I was taken to task when I asked whether there were better ways of doing things, while another Member who said that it would be preferable to have free television licences was not taken to task. I realise that, if I pursue that line, I shall be in trouble yet again. I have had enough trouble for one day—probably today will be as troublesome as yesterday in many ways; that is so often the case.
I hope that other hon. Members' speeches will be as brief as mine so that we can proceed to a vote—if there is to be one. I sincerely hope that no one is daft enough to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: I take my cue from clause 2, which states:
Information provided under section 1 may be used only in connection with television licences for which no fee is payable or reduced-fee licences.
I shall address my remarks to that point, in conjunction with the sentence in the explanatory notes which states:
In November 1999 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that persons aged 75 or over would become entitled to receive a free television licence.
I wondered why the age of 75 had been chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) attempted to give an explanation for that. The Secretary of State also alluded to that point. Two main factors were involved. The first was that 75-year-olds were retired folk, with plenty of time on their hands, who relied heavily on television for enjoyment and relaxation.
However, that argument applies equally to people aged 65 and over. Indeed, it applies increasingly to even younger people. As we know, the age at which people retire is getting lower. That fact puts a large question mark over the arbitrary choice of the age of 75 and makes it difficult to defend. If we are to talk of retirement as a factor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss that principle under this Bill. The Bill is about the disclosure of information; it is not about debating the age at which a particular form of concessionary licence is made available.

Mr. Forth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to participate and to debate what was said earlier. However, if you do not want me to do so, of course I must follow your guidance.
Clause 2 refers to television licences for which no fee is payable. That again raises the issue of the people for whom no fee should be payable. I am worried that such a provision would have a blanket application to a section of the population, regardless of their income. The Bill refers to television licences for which no fee is payable and then, through a mechanism to which frequent reference has been made and which several Members have queried,

attempts to identify the people to whom that would apply. The whole point of the exercise would be lost if that no-fee concession were to be granted to a group of people in a blanket way, regardless of their means to pay for a normal television licence. The application of that administrative process would be misdirected.
A much better approach would be to find a way of allowing everybody to pay a much reduced licence fee, thus eliminating the mechanism suggested in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) have suggested ways to do that. My preference would be to reduce the BBC to a core public service broadcasting operation and to dispose of all the other parts of the BBC—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is going too wide, as he knows, and I must bring him back to the core of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: That is a pity. I shall certainly seek other opportunities to broaden the debate. I was simply trying to allude to remarks made by other contributors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you seem not to favour that approach.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the House and to make sure that we keep within the rules of order as I judge them to be. We have a Bill before us, and I can only interpret that in the best way available to me. I believe that I have interpreted the Bill correctly, according to the purposes laid out in it, and I am just trying to encourage right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is correct.
Clause 3(2) states:
A person who is or has been employed by a recipient or engaged in the provision of services to a recipient, is guilty of an offence if … he discloses information.
We enter an area of doubt because the Bill makes the important distinction between a person employed by a recipient and a person engaged in the provision of services to a recipient.
I wonder whether we can be absolutely satisfied that we will be able properly to police that provision. Although I can imagine that the employment of a person provides reasonable control and, therefore, the reasonable possibility of fulfilling the intention in the clause, I wonder whether that is likely when we broaden the measure to those engaged in the provision of services. They will have an arm's-length contractual arrangement, and that may well reduce control to the extent that the intention cannot be fulfilled.
I want briefly to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He highlighted the fact that clause 3(4) includes a let-out provision that will allow someone to plead that he believed that information had previously been disclosed with lawful authority. That puts a question mark over the possibility of ensuring that the Bill is adequately executed, to say nothing of clause 3(3)(a), which contains the mysterious concept of
a summary or collection of information,


which has yet to be fully explained. I hope that the Minister will be able to throw more light on the matter of the summary. If that term is not closely defined, it will inevitably create suspicion about the possibility of unacceptable disclosure of information.
Clause 3(6) refers to offences and penalties, which are severe. The Bill says that a guilty person is liable to
a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both,
or,
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
Those penalties seem harsh, and I wonder whether Ministers have given proper thought to whether they will be applied for first offences or whether there will be a gradation of offences for which they will be applied. Normally I am in favour of severe penalties being applied by the law in proper circumstances, but in this case the penalties appear to be disproportionate to the offence, unless it is believed that revealing information would be serious enough to merit such penalties. Some further explanation of that would be in order.
I hope that in Committee and on Report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will have the opportunity further to explore some of the matters that have not found your favour this evening. I am generally rather unhappy about the approach being taken. I am unhappy about the arbitrary choice of the age, the blanket provisions and the administrative procedures. I should prefer a radically different approach to the matter.
I hope that, in the detailed examination of the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will be able to look more closely at some of those elements, find out more of the Government's thinking than we have been able to do this evening, and tighten up the Bill, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. That must be our aim. The Bill has come before us in a rather narrow technical sense, even though the intention behind it is much broader.

Mr. David Wilshire: I admit to being slightly nervous about addressing the House. Earlier this evening, I was urged to avoid too much detail, and a little later I was urged not to be too general. I sense that I am setting off on a tightrope, so I hope that I will not fall off it.
A couple of matters have caused concern to a number of people in my constituency. Concern has been expressed by several people about the delay between the announcement—the trumpeting of the Government's intention—and its implementation. The announcement was made four months ago or thereabouts. The Bill makes it possible for that announcement to be put into practice, but the delay will not end there, and I suspect that further concern will be expressed to me by my constituents. Some help from the Minister would be useful when I try to explain to them what the Government are trying to do. There will be an eight-month delay after we have passed the legislation before the much-trumpeted benefit to people over 75 takes effect. It would be helpful to know why another eight months must go by after the debate tonight before the Bill produces the benefits that the Government claim for it.
Another aspect that is causing concern in my constituency is the 75-years-old age limit. I have been asked several times why that was chosen. People felt that it should have been lower.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my previous rulings. We are not going into that matter now.

Mr. Wilshire: I was not seeking to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was simply trying to tell the House what is worrying my constituents. However, I take your point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that that is fascinating, and the House might find an appropriate occasion to discuss it—but tonight we are discussing the Bill.

Mr. Wilshire: There is no need for me to say it again, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I have already got it off my chest.
I am concerned about the fact that we are having an important Second Reading debate after 10 pm. A matter of this importance—[Interruption.] Labour Members should not complain. It was the Government who decided that the previous debate could continue until 10 pm. It was not me or any member of the Opposition. The Government said that we would debate the previous measure till 10 o'clock, and some of us took them at their word.
Here we are after 10 pm, dealing with a Second Reading, and clearly the House is restive. People are tired and understandably do not want the debate to go on for the usual length of time for a Second Reading debate. I see nothing to be gained by trying to delay the House until 3 or 4 am simply to have a five or six-hour debate. However, a Second Reading deserves such debate.
There are aspects of the Bill that I support—let me get that off my chest, to avoid misunderstandings. I support the principle of free licences, whether for over-75-year-olds or for those over 65, as some of my constituents argue. Whatever decision is taken, we will be thankful for small mercies. That is the message that I get from my constituents. I have no wish to dispute the principle with the Government.
I also have no difficulty with short-term licences. If we are to go down the route of providing free licences in such a way, there should clearly be some arrangements for short-term licences for people who become 75 years old four or six months after they have had to renew a licence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is persisting in talking about matters that lie beyond the scope of the Bill. There must be other occasions when such matters would be in order. They are not in order in debate on a Bill that is solely devoted to the transfer of information. That is what he must address.

Mr. Wilshire: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that makes a great deal of sense to me as well. The trouble is that others were allowed to introduce such points, so I thought that it was reasonable to comment. Nevertheless, there are two other matters that I support that are clearly raised in the Bill's wording.
The Secretary of State explained that he felt that there must be some means of minimising the administrative burden on applicants who qualified. At the heart of the Bill—not other issues that have been raised by hon. Members—is an attempt to minimise the administrative burden. I should say straight away that I have no difficulty in supporting that principle. The administrative burden is to be alleviated by reference to the Government's national insurance database. In principle, I have no difficulty with that either; it seems sensible. Use of the database would simplify matters, and it would clearly be unreasonable to say that such an aim is wrong. I do not wish to challenge the Government on such matters, but I shall turn briefly to issues that I do not support. They have been mentioned by others, so I do not need to rehearse the whole argument, although I want to make it clear where my reservations lie.
I am concerned, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), about the detailed method that the Government have chosen to give effect to the principle of easing the burden, which I support. Releasing national insurance data to a third party is not a very good idea. I would therefore do everything possible to avoid doing so. I become even more nervous when I discover that the third party that is to receive such information may pass it down the line to a fourth, fifth or sixth party—to heaven knows how many other contractors.
All of us agree that such information is sensitive and needs to be kept confidential. The chances of a leak on releasing it to a third party are significant, but when that third party is given the power to release it to a fourth party and so on, the risk of a breach of confidentiality is compounded. In those circumstances, it is important that the Government look for another way of achieving an objective with which, in principle, most of us would agree.

Mr. Fabricant: Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to discover that, given such an inherent risk in offering information to private companies, there will apparently be no saving from doing so?

Mr. Wilshire: I shall say something in a moment on the question of cost. I have doubts about the wisdom of such an approach and suggest that the Government give further thought to turning the procedure around. Instead of easing the burden by the Government releasing the information to the BBC, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border that it would be no more difficult for the BBC to pass the queries to the Government and for them to say either yes or no. I cannot see how there could be more work one way than the other, because the same process would be undergone, just by a different group of people. The alternative way would allow the Government to achieve their objective of easing the burden without running the risk of a breach of confidentiality.
We were told at the beginning of the debate that the provision would be a blanket concession to all households in which one person is over the age of 75. I find it difficult to accept that that is a good way to give benefits to people. Although I fully support the principle of free television

licences for those aged over 75, I question whether every household that includes someone of that age needs such help from the Government.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that people should care for the elderly, and that the measure is an incentive for doing that?

Mr. Wilshire: I accept that it is important to debate ways in which to provide incentives for families to look after elderly relatives. However, I suspect that if I responded to the question in detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker would rightly say that my comments were outside the scope of the Bill.
I would be prepared to participate in a discussion about methods of providing incentives, but I question whether the Bill and its approach is an effective method. I do not claim to be against it in principle, or that no family should qualify, but we ought to question whether the blanket approach of applying the Bill to all families is a sensible way to achieve the objective that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned. I am sure that, like me, he can think of families who do not need that help.
I have a query, which has also been raised by other hon. Members, about clause 5(1), which states:
An order under this Act must be made by statutory instrument.
Enough of us have mentioned worries about the detailed procedures in the Bill to make a strong case for some sort of reassurance from the Government. It would reassure me if the Government reconsidered that provision and decided to include the order in the Bill instead of doing it by statutory instrument. It would be up-front and would meet our anxieties part way.
I have two queries about the explanatory notes. On this occasion, they are enormously helpful. There may be a good answer, which has escaped me, to my first query. Page 3 of the explanatory notes details the information that will be included in an order. I understand the reasons for mentioning the name, address and date of birth, but I am puzzled by the requirement for the national insurance number. It would be helpful if someone could put me out of my misery on that point.
My second query, which has already been mentioned, is about item 15, which states:
There will be no effects on public sector finances or manpower.
At the beginning of the debate, I heard that there would be £340 million of administrative costs and that the cost of free licences would be another £340 million or some such figure. I hope that I wrote down the figures correctly, but if I got them wrong, I would be happy to be told differently. The Minister is not leaping up to tell me that I am wrong, so I shall persevere.
Someone, or a group of people, in the Government will have to answer the questions that the BBC posed. They have manpower implications. The explanatory notes state that the Bill will have no effect on public sector finance or manpower, but even if my figures are wrong—perhaps Hansard will correct them if necessary—I believe that I heard the Secretary of State explain the costs at the beginning of our proceedings. Perhaps the Minister will sort that out.
One other matter causes me anxiety. By introducing the method in the Bill to help people who are over 75, and to try to achieve that goal as painlessly as possible, we are removing one of the key reasons for the way in which we fund the BBC. Although I support the Bill in principle, I slightly regret that we are taking away one of the arguments that puts a great deal of pressure on the BBC and on the Government to have a comprehensive look at the whole question. That is a pity, and I make the point in passing.
Let me make it clear that I am perfectly happy with the principle that makes the Bill necessary. I have no quarrel with free licences for the over-75s or with what the Bill seeks to achieve by easing the administrative burden. which is a good idea. However, I am not happy with the way in which the Government are going about that. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose the Government this evening, but, in return, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my detailed queries and, either in Committee or on Report, to the objections raised by myself and others.

Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) set out the Conservative position. We support the measure, as I made clear during our recent debate on the order that introduced the licence fee increase as well as the free licence concession for over-75s. Given that a number of Members have queried our position throughout the debate, I can do no more than confirm that we would vote with the Government in support of the Bill in the unlikely event of the House dividing.
My hon. Friend nevertheless outlined a number of concerns. I do not intend to repeat them in detail at this late stage, except to say that the Bill represents a significant departure from the existing licensing arrangements and an unprecedented and unique use of social security information. For that reason, we welcome the Secretary of State's comment about the need to incorporate sensible precautions. However, we wonder whether it would not be preferable to specify in the Bill rather by order the type of information and data to be provided, which he said would be narrow. We can debate that in detail in Committee.
We also urge the vital need for an information campaign. It is tempting to suggest that one in advance of the debate might have been appropriate. Such is the potential confusion, elderly people need to know where they stand. More than one hon. Member raised the question of what would happen if a pensioner aged over 75 had no licence. In the light of the Government's clear objective that over-75s should have a free licence, we would all agree that some special arrangement needs to be made for those without a licence. Prosecuting a pensioner for not having one would clearly be at odds with that objective, which came across in one of the exchanges. We would also welcome the Minister putting on the record a clear assurance that there will be no marketing use of the information made available to the BBC and its subcontractors.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) welcomed the thought that the concession's scope may be widened. On our reading, the

Bill clearly allows for that in respect of the availability to the BBC of the social security information of under-75s. He referred to his own interest in making this concession available to all pensioners and to some income support claimants. He acknowledged that that could be the thin end of the wedge. I mention that because I thought that he was surprisingly relaxed about the assertion that the impartiality of the BBC would not be compromised. That is somewhat at odds with the criticism of the licence fee increase in the recent report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which he chairs. The Conservative party is also critical of the increase in the licence fee.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) acknowledged the potential for some abuse of civil liberties, and the need to quantify the extent of the information that will be made available, to which I have already referred. He also mentioned the legal position of a pensioner over 75 who does not have a licence.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) helpfully drew attention to the problem of the concessionary licence scheme. Hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate the difficulty that that anomaly poses. He referred to 200 householders in his constituency who have been advised that they will lose the concession, and he criticised the licensing authority. Those of us who have considered this matter and the Davies panel recommendations recognise that there is no easy answer to that anomaly.
I hope that we can achieve some consensus, because it seems incongruous, to say the least, that people who have the concession suddenly lose it if someone under the age of 60 moves into the sheltered accommodation where they reside and which allows them to enjoy it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) reminded the House of his ten-minute Bill in July 1997, which would have introduced free television licences for the over-75s. He seemed to support the Secretary of State in arguing that the over-75s were a special case. However, he did not approve of the machinery, and asked why we should not allow pensioners to send the licence fee application to the Department of Social Security. We shall want to explore that issue in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to the need to ensure that the BBC achieves proper savings. We all agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) queried the cost of this measure. It is important to note that, although it would appear from what the Secretary of State said that the total cost to the Treasury of the free licence will be £344 million—as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, the figure grows every time we debate this issue—the Secretary of State also said that the cost of implementation would be £24.3 million. I therefore think it right for the House on Second Reading and when we examine these matters in Committee to have regard to the greater efficiency of the scheme and to ensure that the costs are kept to a minimum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) drew attention to the difficulty of exercising proper scrutiny of the Bill and the scheme if anyone who raised any concern stood the risk of being accused of hostility towards the granting of free television


licences for the over-75s. That is not our position. We want to examine in detail the Government's proposed scheme to ensure that it is given proper scrutiny.
My right hon. Friend also raised some proper concerns about the mechanism for the transfer of information. He questioned whether the DSS could provide the necessary information in a different way. I will read carefully what he said. I think that the Committee stage will give us a good opportunity to test whether the Government's scheme is the most sensible, or whether we could find an alternative that would avoid the need to give the information about people's social security records to the BBC or other third parties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) feared that the penalties might be disproportionate to the offences. That, too, will need to be considered in Committee.
It should be clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey and I have said that we warmly support the Bill's objective, which is laudable. However, it represents a major change, and it is reasonable for us to ask whether the assurances given by the Secretary of State are adequate. I also think that we need to be clear that the £344 million direct payment to the BBC does not undermine its impartiality and independence. More to the point, will free licences for so many residents of the country begin to undermine the concept of the television licence itself? It will certainly encourage some to challenge the requirement for them to pay.
We should keep those concerns in mind, and recognise that, in a multi-channel age, as the principle of the universal licence fee comes under attack, it will be essential for both the BBC and the Government to demonstrate that resources are being used efficiently, that licence-fee increases are being kept within reasonable bounds, that the BBC continues to be independent and impartial, and—with specific reference to the Bill—that concessions such as free licences command popular support. While we are more than satisfied that the proposal for a free licence for older pensioners is genuinely welcomed by the public, we have a duty to ensure that it is implemented—as the Secretary of State himself said—as simply as possible, but with efficiency and security. We look forward to ensuring in Committee that those aims are realised, so that the 1 November implementation date can be achieved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate on what is necessarily a narrowly focused Bill. Its purpose is clear: to assist in the provision of free television licences for people aged 75 or over. I was pleased to note support for the concession, although I know that some Members would like it to be more widely available. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made that point.
It is clear from the responses that we have received since the announcement of our proposal that the concession is much welcomed by older pensioners, but that many are concerned about what they must do to obtain their free licence, and are anxious not to miss out. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received many letters from Members who are eager to

know the details. The Government are especially keen to ensure that the administration of free licences for the over-75s does not impose unnecessary burdens, and thus undo much of the good of the concession. Our aim is as far as possible to enable elderly people to claim it from the comfort of their armchairs.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) welcome the concession, because I believe that, in the past, he has described it as a hollow gimmick. I am glad that he no longer takes that view.
There must be a proper understanding of how the arrangement will operate, and we are working closely with TV Licensing and the Department of Social Security to ensure that people have the information that they need.
I telephoned TV Licensing this morning. Any hon. Member who does so will find that, in the recorded choices, there is clear instruction on which number to press for information about the free television licence. This week, I received my new licence in the post from TV Licensing. It says clearly that pensioners over 75 will be entitled to a free licence from 1 November.

Mr. Fabricant: I am curious. The Minister telephoned TV Licensing and got the recorded messages. Did she eventually manage to speak to a real human being?

Janet Anderson: I did and she was very courteous. She dealt with my point very competently.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It was his mother.

Janet Anderson: I do not know whether it was the hon. Gentleman's mother.
Many hon. Members have asked what will be the position of pensioners over 75 who do not hold free television licences when they should. I am sure that TV Licensing will be sensitive to that matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, the Government are not in the business of sending 80-year-olds to prison because they were perhaps confused about the rules, but it is our job and that of TV Licensing to ensure that as much information is available as widely as possible.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is no longer in the Chamber, also referred to the scheme as a gimmick. He raised the question of whether it would mean the Government interfering with the independence of the BBC. It is wrong even to suggest that. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on the other Opposition Bench confirm that he believed that to be the case, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
One of the reasons for doing it in that way is that it is very simple. We want pensioners to be able easily to avail themselves of the free licence from their armchair, but it is important to retain the licence principle. There is no question of the Government, through the process, taking a stake in the BBC. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South said, the Government are making good a revenue loss. I clarify the position. As the Secretary of State and I have said on numerous occasions, we believe that the licence fee is the best possible way in which to fund the BBC for the foreseeable future.
The hon. Member for East Surrey asked why the over-75s must apply to opt in. As I say, that is because it preserves the long-standing tradition that everyone who has a television must have a licence and that the fee goes to fund the BBC. The introduction of the concession does not provide sufficient cause to question that basic principle.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Secretary of State's part in the matter. I refer him to subsections (3) and (4) of the Bill, which refers to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will make orders describing the sort of information that may be supplied to the BBC. I repeat for the benefit of the House: it is intended to define only a very narrow range of information: the age, address, date of birth and the national insurance number of persons aged 74 or over.
It is intended that an order under the Bill should enable the Department of Social Security and Northern Ireland Department to disclose to the BBC the fact that such a person has died. That is important. Under the amendment that was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and subsequently withdrawn, the information would have to be sought every year and information about when an eligible pensioner had died would not automatically be passed to the BBC, and that could cause great distress to families.
Several hon. Members have asked whether the information to be disclosed can be in the Bill. Although the information that may be disclosed is not in the Bill, I assure the House that it will appear in an order, subject to negative resolution of either House. I hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance that they seek.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton dealt very competently with the question that was asked about the number of households. Although it is difficult for us to be accurate about the number now, we estimate that it is about 3 million households.
I should also deal now with the issue of costs—as it has been raised by various hon. Members who seemed to be a little confused. We estimate that, in 2000–01, the cost of the concession will be £344 million, with an additional £23.4 million in administration costs in the first year. It is important that those administration costs are kept to a minimum, and I assure the House that we shall be ensuring that there is pressure on TV Licensing and on the Department of Social Security to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The administration costs in the first year will of course include start-up costs. Could the Minister give a figure on the start-up costs and also a figure on what she expects the administration costs to be in subsequent years?

Janet Anderson: I do not have that information now, but perhaps we can discuss the matter in Committee. I suspect that the matter will become clearer as arrangements for the scheme are implemented.
I thank the hon. Member for Lewes for his welcome for the provision and for his confirmation that he does not believe that it will affect either the BBC's independence or the BBC's income. On his point on administration costs, we understand that hon. Members are rightly concerned about those costs. Everything that needs to be done will be done to keep down those costs.
The hon. Member for Lewes also asked whether claims of arrears would be considered when pensioners had been entitled to the concession but had not known about it. Claims of arrears in such a concession pose various difficulties, especially as they would involve cash refunds. In particular, as I am sure that he will appreciate, retrospective proof of entitlement covering several years will not be straightforward. However, we are willing to consider that issue further in introducing the concession.

Mr. Baker: The Minister's comments underline the need to ensure that the information provided now is as full as possible, so that the situation does not arise. May I also tell her that I renewed my television licence earlier today—in time for this debate—and that there was no mention anywhere on it of the forthcoming change allowing those over 75 to qualify for a free licence? Why is the information not on the television licence itself?

Janet Anderson: I received my television licence, and there were some details—although I cannot remember the exact words—of the concession on it. Nevertheless, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that TV Licensing will be writing to everyone with full details of the concession, including details on the provision of part licences, to ensure that as much information as possible is available as widely as possible.
Hon. Members also asked questions about the reason for the delay in introducing the legislation and in implementing the concession until 1 November. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that we get this right and ensure that all those who are entitled to the concession receive it. We therefore have to provide time for the BBC and TV Licensing to prepare for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) raised an issue that I know concerns various hon. Members who have had similar experiences in their own constituencies. The issue is also often raised with us in correspondence. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier in the debate, we have removed one small anomaly in situations in which entitlement to the concession is based on housing provision—namely, in the sheltered housing scheme. Previously, strictly speaking, men over 60 in such a development would have threatened the concession for everyone in that development. We have now said that, in future, the qualifying age for both men and women in such housing will be 60. The change was introduced with the order that increased the television licence fee.
In our response to Davies, and in considering what to do, we have made it plain that, although we accept that the concessionary licence scheme is unfair and unsatisfactory, we believe that to try to tinker around with it would produce only more anomalies. We believe that, by introducing the provision to give free licences to all over-75s, we have started to strip unfairness out of the scheme. We shall look into the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley raised.
From 1 May to 1 November, when the scheme comes in, is a period of six months. Those who will be eligible on 1 November need purchase only a six-month licence.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not want to delay the House, but what will be the arrangement for those who pay by direct debit?

Janet Anderson: I imagine that it will still be possible for them to purchase part-licences, but we shall have to


look at the detail. That is one reason for trying to approach the issue in a measured and responsible way, so that we can ensure that pensioners are able to avail themselves of the concessionary scheme in the simplest way possible.
I assure the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the scheme is purely for over-75s. Like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, whose proposed amendment was subsequently withdrawn, he said that it should be possible to apply directly to the Department of Social Security. We decided that such a system would duplicate bureaucracy and administration, and therefore the cost. We thought that it was much simpler to have a unit at one end—at the BBC—that would have the necessary information, rather than having two units.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) raised a number of points that have already been covered. We did not envisage that one of the likely consequences of the legislation would be to persuade his ageing mother to move in with him, but I am very pleased that she will benefit from the concession and I hope that he will constantly remind her that it was given to her by a Labour Government.
We have dealt with most of the issues and we shall look at the rest in Committee. I am sorry that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) took so long on this Bill and the earlier Bill that the House considered, delaying us until this late hour. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border mentioned the way in which criminal records were dealt with at the Home Office. A system that is regarded as proportional for information such as criminal records is not proportional for a national insurance number. We are talking about different kinds of information. I think that most hon. Members accept that the Bill is essential to ensure that pensioners get the concession.
I do not intend to delay the House much longer. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised several issues that we can deal with in Committee. I have confirmed the cost and administration implications. I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his measured and thoughtful response. I hope that he will be able to ensure that Conservative Members facilitate the passage of the Bill. Around 3 million pensioners will benefit from the concession, which was fiercely resisted by the Conservatives when they were in government. We want to ensure that those pensioners benefit as quickly as possible. I look forward to co-operation from all hon. Members to facilitate that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

BANANA IMPORTS

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13048/99, a draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas; and supports the Government's objective of achieving a revised EU banana regime which will not be challenged in the World Trade Organisation and which will reflect EU commitments to Caribbean and African countries, particularly the UK's traditional suppliers in the Caribbean.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West) be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee, and Mr. John Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Policing (South Cumbria)

Mr. Tim Collins: This petition, which has been signed by more than 3,800 of my constituents, represents strong feeling across south Cumbria about the level of police resourcing in our area and, in particular, about the fate of Milnthorpe police station.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The petition of residents of South Lakeland
Declares that there is growing concern in south Cumbria about recent reductions in the policing of our area, shown by the closure of police stations and the reduction of the number of police officers.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Home Secretary to implement immediately the inclusion of a sparsity element in the funding formula for Home Office support for police forces and urge him to ensure genuinely equal access to policing in all parts of our country.
And the petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Magistrates Courts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

1 am

Mr. John Burnett: It is 1 o'clock in the morning, and I am grateful to the hon. Members who are still present, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). Throughout the country, especially in country towns and rural areas, there is great concern about the future of our magistrates courts. That is especially so in Devon and Cornwall. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he wishes to emphasise the disquiet that is felt in our part of the south-west.
I speak tonight to highlight the problems of funding for magistrates courts. I have had meetings and correspondence over the past few months with the Minister on that point, especially as it affects the two counties. First, the Government's policy is to insist on 3 per cent. per annum savings from magistrates courts budgets. I have taken that point up in writing with the Minister and she tells me that 3 per cent. is an efficiency savings initiative. I have been informed by her that an efficiency target of a minimum of 3 per cent. was set out for the Lord Chancellor's Department and magistrates courts in the comprehensive spending review in 1998, which covers three years, from 1999–2000 to 2001–02.
At a meeting on 2 March 2000 in the Minister's office, I was accompanied by several hon. Members and some magistrates. The Minister made it clear to the meeting that the cuts being imposed on Devon and Cornwall were not cost driven.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I would like him to acknowledge that at no point did I accept his definition of the efficiency targets as being cuts.

Mr. Burnett: That is exactly what the Minister did say, but they are, in effect, cuts and I shall say exactly why they are. Many magistrates courts committees believe that they have to cut their budgets by 3 per cent. a year for at least three years. That is the impression that the Minister, or her Department, has given magistrates courts committees in Devon and Cornwall, and elsewhere. Those cuts are even greater when one considers that no allowance will be made for inflation. If inflation is 2 per cent. a year, that means that the cuts will be 5 per cent. per annum.
If that is the policy, it is utterly irresponsible of the Government to impose it.

Jane Kennedy: indicated dissent.

Mr. Burnett: Well, I look forward to hearing the Minister's views and I hope that she can contradict the impression, which all magistrates courts seem to have, of the need to make cuts of 3 per cent. per annum. After all—in a move that makes the policy even more paradoxical—the Government have sanctioned pay

increases for the staff of magistrates courts of 3 per cent. per annum. How can cuts of 5 per cent. per annum for three years be reconciled with increases in staff costs of 3 per cent. per annum? I hope that the Minister will address that specific point in her response to the debate.
There is complete confusion. Magistrates courts committees believe that they must cut expenditure by at least 3 per cent. per year. However, not only have staff costs risen by 3 per cent. per year, but the work of magistrates courts is set to increase substantially, thanks to the incorporation in our law of the European convention on human rights, and thanks to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In a letter to me dated 16 March, the Minister did not define efficiency savings. I hope that she will do so when she responds this evening. She wrote:
Improving efficiency does not mean cuts in funding. It is about ensuring that the money that is available provides value for money.
She went on to say that, on current plans, there would be about £379 million in revenue and capital expenditure on magistrates courts for the year 2001–02, an increase of just over 5.25 per cent. in the three years covered by the last spending review.
If that is so, why is this year's budget for the Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee to be cut? Where is the increased expenditure being applied? I am also anxious to know exactly what an efficiency saving is, how it is measured and who measures it.
My final point about funding and the pressures imposed on the Government to close courts is one that I have raised with the Minister in the past. It has much to do with the Lord Chancellor's liaising with other Government Departments—joined-up Government, in other words.
At the meeting on 2 March, I asked the Minister a question that I reiterated in my letter of 7 March. I asked what cost-benefit analysis is done when efficiency savings give rise to court closures. In Devon and Cornwall, it is proposed to close 13 courts. What will the effect of those closures be on the budgets of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates, the probation service, the Legal Aid Board, and the other users of the courts? Small savings by the Lord Chancellor's Department will be far outweighed by significant increases in the budgets of other central Government Departments, and in those of local government departments.
In her letter of 16 March, the Minister stated that that information was not collected centrally—an outrageous reply. It is like a company director who has dismissed half the sales force without consulting anyone then being surprised at a dramatic fall in sales. Central Government provide 80 per cent. of the costs of magistrates courts. They should not cut the budgets of those courts, unilaterally and arbitrarily, without a clear knowledge of the impact that those cuts will have. Costs for other central Government Departments and agencies, and for local government departments, will be significantly increased. Central Government should make a proper cost benefit study or impact assessment and should give sensible guidance on the matter to magistrates courts committees.
Finally, I must stress that the Government should understand the particular difficulties faced by sparsely populated counties such as Devon and Cornwall.


Courts are located many miles from each other, roads are poor and public transport is scarce or non-existent. Such rural counties are a special case.
This country has a lay magistracy of which we can all be proud, and efficient courts. The Minister must not be party to measures that will undermine a crucial part of our rural infrastructure.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and to the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution to the debate. I must first declare a special interest. Not only is my area greatly affected by the proposals, but my wife is a justice of the peace, so I am particularly well briefed on the subject.
I wish to underline two points that my hon. Friend made. As he said, the Minister was gracious enough to receive a deputation of representatives of benches from Devon and Cornwall and a number of Members of Parliament from all parties in the area. She spelled out in no uncertain terms what the Department considered to be efficiency savings. I want to explore that a little further.
I should first explain that Cornwall has been through this process before. In my own part of Cornwall, under the Conservative Government, eight courts were closed and similar arguments were used at the time. We know all about trying to make efficiency savings. They have been made with great difficulty. Preventing any deterioration in the service has placed great strain on the magistracy and the clerks. However, there comes a point when one can go no further.
Let me briefly illustrate the sort of savings that are being considered. The closure of the court facilities at Launceston, in my area, is estimated to result in savings of some £13,500. However, in a letter to some of us in the area, the magistrates courts committee has already acknowledged that, of that £13,500, an additional cost of £9,000 will immediately be incurred by the magistracy and the clerks, thereby reducing the figure to £4,500. As my hon. Friend has said, that takes no account of the costs of all the other services to the court. Even before one starts talking about those who give voluntarily of their time to attend court as witnesses, or in any other capacity, the added costs of the police, the probation service, the Law Society and legal aid come to a great deal more than £4,500. So the savings are not merely notional, but non-existent.
What does the Department mean by efficiency? Is it more efficient if witnesses are not prepared to come forward when they know that there is no public transport to the new court house to which they are summoned? Will it be more efficient justice that more and more lay JPs will simply not be prepared to serve? That is already the case in my area. A working farmer cannot give up the amount of time necessary to go a longer distance to the court house. Most importantly, how can we guarantee that the quality of the justice dispensed from a more remote court system will mean that we will get real justice?
Efficiency is a word that is much thrown about in the Chamber. When it comes to providing local justice, if it is not truly just justice, it is clearly not efficient. In those terms, efficiency savings are simply a chimera. They do not exist, because we are not providing the service to the community.
Devon and Cornwall are at the forefront of the problem. That may be as well, because when the chairs of the various benches came to see the Minister, along with my hon. Friend and myself, it was made clear that Devon and Cornwall are special cases. The Minister has told me previously that the Department is prepared to be flexible in terms of the efficiency savings and the consequences for particular rural areas. Devon and Cornwall will require that flexibility. It is already inevitable that people will have to travel very long distances.
The Minister said at our meeting that she wanted a higher standard of court facilities. She wanted to prevent, if necessary, a witness and a defendant from being in the same part of the building together for any length of time. The chair of one of the benches pointed out to her and to us that if that witness and that defendant had already spent two hours on a bus together getting to the court, it was complete folly to worry about what would happen in the building.
Sometimes seeking perfection means that we do not make any real improvements at all, and that is the case that we are putting before the House tonight.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Just over two months ago—in replying to a debate on magistrates courts initiated by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and attended by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—I said that I expected to return to this subject. Since that debate, I have met hon. Members from Devon and Cornwall constituencies and have written to them. I have also answered two parliamentary questions—one from the hon. Gentleman himself.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to return to this important issue, and to set out clearly the Government's position. I want also to challenge the assertion that the efficiency targets for the Lord Chancellor's Department are cuts. In doing so, I will return to ground that has been very well trodden over the past few weeks. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will have braced himself with regard to that fact.
First, I should remind the House of the responsibilities of magistrates courts committees. MCCs are made up of magistrates drawn from local benches in their area. The committees are selected by local magistrates. They have a statutory responsibility for the effective and efficient management of the courts in their area.
That means that magistrates from Devon and Cornwall manage the courts in Devon and Cornwall; magistrates from Merseyside, where my constituency lies, manage the courts on Merseyside; magistrates from London manage the courts in London; and so on. Parliament has set a national framework within which the courts are run. However, the Lord Chancellor does not manage the courts, and does not tell MCCs how to manage the courts.
Decisions affecting the magistrates courts and the services that they provide, the way that they are staffed and the location of courthouses are taken by local magistrates—not by central Government. It is local people who are best placed to consider these issues from a local perspective.

Mr. Burnett: We are aware of the points that the Parliamentary Secretary has made. We are anxious to find


out exactly what the Government's policy is on central Government spending; the impact of closures on other services; and the illusory savings that the Government think they will make.

Jane Kennedy: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to elucidate that point, and I hope to be able to satisfy him on it.
The Lord Chancellor, as the Minister responsible for magistrates courts, has certain specific functions. One of them—which I exercise on his behalf—is to determine appeals by the paying authorities, the local councils, against MCC proposals to close courthouses. That is why, in debates and exchanges with hon. Members, I do not and cannot comment on individual MCC proposals. In the event of an appeal, each case will be carefully considered on its merits. It would be wholly wrong of me to prejudge the quasi-judicial decision that I must make should an appeal be lodged.
Beyond those specific functions, the Lord Chancellor is concerned with the performance of the magistrates courts and the contribution that they make to the criminal justice system. That has a high priority, in accordance with the Government's aims for the criminal justice system. Those aims are: to reduce crime and the fear of crime and their social and economic costs; to dispense justice fairly and efficiently; and to promote confidence in the rule of law.
Accordingly, and rightly, performance standards and targets are set for the magistrates courts. Users of the courts are entitled to no less. It is for MCCs to decide how they achieve the targets. The Lord Chancellor does not dictate how they should do it.
Of course—this brings me specifically to the question of funding—MCCs, like every other public sector organisation, must operate within the budgetary allocations that they are given. I emphasise that they are not given any instructions about how to do that, and I hope that that answers one point made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.
There has been some debate during the past weeks about the efficiency targets set for magistrates courts, which have been represented as cuts in funding. It is quite right that we should continue to seek better value for the money provided for running magistrates courts. The amount that we spend on magistrates courts is very significant. Before I give some figures, it may help if I remind the House that MCCs are funded by local authorities, and that the Lord Chancellor provides grants to those authorities to cover 80 per cent. of the cost.
For the year that began on 1 April, we expect total spending on magistrates courts to be in the region of £372 million, a figure already known to the hon. Gentleman. That includes the contribution from local authorities. Of that, £343 million is for the revenue costs of running the courts, and £29 million is for capital expenditure on buildings and information technology. In 2001–02, under current plans, we expect to spend £379 million, an increase of more than 5 per cent. in the three years covered by the 1998 comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Burnett: Why, therefore, do magistrates in Devon and Cornwall, the areas that I know best, labour under the

impression that they must reduce expenditure by 3 per cent. a year for at least three years? Other MCCs are under the same misapprehension.

Jane Kennedy: I honestly cannot answer that. We are talking about efficiency improvements, not cash cuts. We are seeking more for the money available. It is possible to receive more money and be more efficient if the increase in output—the performance of the courts—is proportionately greater than the increase in spending. We are concerned about the quality of what is delivered, not just the volume.
It may be helpful if I refer briefly to the way in which money is distributed, because funding for any MCC depends both on the total and the mechanism for sharing it. That mechanism is a calculation based on a formula that is currently being reviewed. We aim to have a new mechanism in place for the allocation of money for the financial year beginning in April 2001.
A substantial amount of money is spent on magistrates courts, but funds are not unlimited. The taxpayer's pockets are not bottomless, and that includes council tax payers as well as the payers of national taxes, because the courts are in part locally funded. Taxpayers—local and national—have a right to expect that the money provided should be spent well to obtain maximum value.
That brings me back to efficiency gains. MCCs are far from alone in being set an efficiency target. The target of 3 per cent. set for magistrates courts is exactly the same as the target for the Lord Chancellor's Department as a whole. It is also the target that was set generally in the last spending review for Departments responsible for the criminal justice system. That does not mean that expenditure is being cut. I have already given figures to show that spending has increased. Our policy is about doing better with the money that is available.
In the magistrates courts, we expect significant efficiency gains from our modernisation initiatives. That was made clear in the statement to both Houses in October 1997 about the MCC amalgamation programme. When the programme is completed in April next year, the number of MCCs will have reduced from 96 at the time of the statement to 42. That programme will make a large contribution to improving efficiency—leading to reduced overheads and to the promotion of economies of scale.
As I said in the House on 1 February, on the basis of an assessment by consultants of potential savings from a proposed merger of MCCs in the midlands, it is estimated that gains equivalent to 6 per cent. of the amalgamating MCCs budgets could be realised. Amalgamations will also contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole by aligning the boundaries of MCCs with those of other agencies.
We are also improving information technology, which will benefit the magistrates courts and the criminal justice system as a whole. Improved procedures will be introduced—for example, early administrative hearings—which achieve quicker disposal of cases and, as a consequence, release resources.
Those central initiatives contribute significantly to efficiency gains, and provide the foundation on which MCCs can build. Efficiency does not necessarily mean getting the same output for less money. It is about getting proportionately more for any level of funding. That is not


necessarily measured only in volume. A better quality of service for any given level of resources would represent a gain in efficiency.
That is important in relation to the courthouse location debate because MCCs' courthouse location proposals—which courts are placed in which localities—reflect the aim and expectation that services and facilities offered to all court users be brought up to the standards required in the 21st century. Cases should take no longer to pass through the system than is necessary and the process of administering justice should be improved.
Older courthouses do not have the facilities that should be expected. Of course, the needs of local justice must be considered very carefully—especially access to the courts. I should always expect that to be explored most thoroughly in any proposal that might come to me on appeal.
However, an MCC's responsibility to consider those issues must be accepted. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall pointed out, cost savings are often small in the case of old buildings which lack modern facilities, but where they can be made, they are available to be ploughed back to support improved services and performance. Provided that all the issues and legitimate concerns have been weighed in the balance, that, clearly, must be a factor in any decision about courthouse location.
Finally, looking to the future, I should mention the review of the criminal courts that Lord Justice Auld is conducting. He will produce authoritative advice on the

lines on which the criminal justice system will be developed. He is due to report by the end of December and it is clearly too soon to say whether his advice will have any impact on the matters we have debated today. However, it is fair that I should remind the House of that review.
As I have said, we are reviewing the mechanism for allocating money to MCCs. One of the proposals that will be examined, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, is a sparsity factor to reflect any higher costs of running magistrates courts in spread-out, sparsely populated, rural MCC areas. However, I can give no undertakings on that; we must await the outcome of the review.
The comprehensive spending review covered the three years from 1999 to 2002. The House will be aware that the spending review for the three years from April is now under way. The outcome of that will be known later in the year. The Lord Chancellor will put his case for the level of funding he believes is needed for magistrates courts, as he will for all the other matters for which he has ministerial responsibility. Of course, other Ministers will be doing the same and the outcome will reflect the Government's spending priorities. Whatever the outcome, the pressure to achieve greater value for money in magistrates courts will continue. It is right that it should.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.